Don't know if it's worth noting that the Jews were used to pilgrimage--theoretically they were supposed to traipse down to Jerusalem three times a year, every man jack of them, though I don't suppose for a moment that was the reality at Jesus' time. But still, there's precedent.
I wasn't thinking they'd not generally travel so much as speculating that moving to another region to work might have been less common. I have family from Lebanon, and there are apparently villages there where the same families have lived pretty much back to Bible times.
OK, @Eutychus, having been recommending and quoting from Borg and Crossan's The First Christmas several times on this thread I now know I'm invisible. Including summarising that section.
OK, @Eutychus, having been recommending and quoting from Borg and Crossan's The First Christmas several times on this thread I now know I'm invisible. Including summarising that section.
(Have you seen The First Paul?)
No.
This detail in Luke isn't the kind of thing I can get worked up enough about to go out and buy a book to check up on.
Perhaps Borg and Crossan are right that this is a bit of metaphor by Luke. Certainly I think there's more metaphor in the Gospel stories than might first meet the modern eye (although as has been pointed out, that seems less likely from the pen of Luke given his statd aim). But I am sceptical about hanging any explanation on such an assured view of what did and didn't go on in a bureaucracy 2,000 years ago on the basis of the extant record, all the more so if the attempted census turned out to be a fiasco, as @Rufus T Firefly, who also quotes from the book, tells us they say would have been the case.
Eight or so years ago France rolled out a nationwide system to tax trucks on motorways, and got as far as erecting a whole series of gantries with CCTV everywhere across the land for enforcement and setting up an entire quango to collect the taxes. This being France, and it being possible to bring these down by the simple expedient of setting fire to a pile of tyres around the base of each gantry, the inevitable happened. At a very late stage, the entire initiative was scrapped; today, round where I live I can think of only two surviving gantries and I suspect a lot of people already don't know or remember what they were for.
The whole thing was a national embarassment of which I doubt any accurate record will be widely known in a couple of decades, let alone a couple of millenia.
Such a thing having happened at the time of Jesus' birth doesn't seem any more speculative to me than the possibility of things having happened as Luke described and us simply not knowing about it from the historical record.
Do Borg & Crossan discuss the question if the translation of Luke 2.1?
The Greek is αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This has usually been translated as ‘this was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ but it can also be translated as ‘this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.
OK, @Eutychus, having been recommending and quoting from Borg and Crossan's The First Christmas several times on this thread I now know I'm invisible. Including summarising that section.
(Have you seen The First Paul?)
No.
This detail in Luke isn't the kind of thing I can get worked up enough about to go out and buy a book to check up on.
Perhaps Borg and Crossan are right that this is a bit of metaphor by Luke. Certainly I think there's more metaphor in the Gospel stories than might first meet the modern eye (although as has been pointed out, that seems less likely from the pen of Luke given his statd aim). But I am sceptical about hanging any explanation on such an assured view of what did and didn't go on in a bureaucracy 2,000 years ago on the basis of the extant record, all the more so if the attempted census turned out to be a fiasco, as @Rufus T Firefly, who also quotes from the book, tells us they say would have been the case.
Eight or so years ago France rolled out a nationwide system to tax trucks on motorways, and got as far as erecting a whole series of gantries with CCTV everywhere across the land for enforcement and setting up an entire quango to collect the taxes. This being France, and it being possible to bring these down by the simple expedient of setting fire to a pile of tyres around the base of each gantry, the inevitable happened. At a very late stage, the entire initiative was scrapped; today, round where I live I can think of only two surviving gantries and I suspect a lot of people already don't know or remember what they were for.
The whole thing was a national embarassment of which I doubt any accurate record will be widely known in a couple of decades, let alone a couple of millenia.
Such a thing having happened at the time of Jesus' birth doesn't seem any more speculative to me than the possibility of things having happened as Luke described and us simply not knowing about it from the historical record.
Sorry, last para should read:
Such a thing having happened at the time of Jesus' birth pretty much as Luke described and us simply not knowing about it from the historical record doesn't seem any more speculative to me than the Borg and Crossan explanation.
One of the things I got from Borg and Crossan is a suggestion that a lot of our problems with the Bible are that we struggle not to read it with all our cultural assumptions, that historical accounts are written in a certain way, when that isn't the way they were written.
I also find it fascinating that we've lost much of the context, the understanding of the Roman world of the time of Jesus, and that much of the Gospels appear to have been written to contrast with that situation.
And in addition, looking at both Nativity stories, as I mentioned on the previous page:
There are differences and similarities between the accounts in Matthew and Luke. They both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke started with Mary and Joseph moving from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then back to Nazareth, Matthew has them starting in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt and returning to Nazareth. Both sound like ways of understanding how Jesus of Nazareth happened to have been born in Bethlehem and then moved to Nazareth...
I think "cultural assumptions" might differ between individuals.
If the "cultural assumption" is that the Bible should be understood in all points like a secondary school history textbook, and if it's not true in all points in similar fashion then there's a big problem (which seems to be where some fundamentalists start out) then yes, that's a cultural assumption that will get in the way.
If the "cultural assumption" is essentially dismissing everything that doesn't immediately appear self-evident on the basis of "we know much better than that now" - including when a gospel author explicitly claims to be setting out a documented historical account - and shoehorning in a lot of contemporary explanation, then that can also get in the way; that's hubris. Looking back I think not a few self-assured declarations of the like have ultimately been shot to pieces by the archeological record.
To my mind the first step to overcoming cultural assumptions is to have a degree of humility about one's own explanations. That's not a vibe I'm getting from the Borg and Crossman quotes. I could well be wrong about the Luke census merely being a first-century bureaucratic snafu that was quietly buried by the official record, I'm not suggesting it's definitive, and I'm not going to think the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales if the census didn't actually happen as described. I'm just saying my explanation seems just as plausible to me as theirs, and a lot simpler.
I don't have enough knowledge, or to honest, care enough whether the Biblical record is accurate, was just offering a considered alternative explanation, with attribution.
None of those theories explain the other differences between the two Nativity narratives as to whether the journey to Bethlehem happened at all. When one narrative describes it and the other doesn't there is a question mark.
I don't have enough knowledge, or to honest, care enough whether the Biblical record is accurate, was just offering a considered alternative explanation, with attribution.
None of those theories explain the other differences between the two Nativity narratives as to whether the journey to Bethlehem happened at all. When one narrative describes it and the other doesn't there is a question mark.
I don't have enough knowledge, or to honest, care enough whether the Biblical record is accurate, was just offering a considered alternative explanation, with attribution.
None of those theories explain the other differences between the two Nativity narratives as to whether the journey to Bethlehem happened at all. When one narrative describes it and the other doesn't there is a question mark.
Not really.
The first thing to say is that - as you know - the two other Gospels don't even have a Nativity story. So the most obvious observation is that different writers considered different things important.
The second thing is to grasp that an understanding of the Nativity as depicted in Western culture as all happening on one night with Magi and Shepherds at the same time is not what is implied at all.
If we posit that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Joseph had kinfolk in the area, it is very likely that the little family stayed there a while with Joseph working as a Carpenter in that town. The manger itself means the downstairs room of a house not a stable. But after a few days, they may well have found somewhere more permanent.
Matthew describes Herod wanting all boys under 2 years to be killed. This suggests very strongly that it wasn't a newborn he was looking for!
The presentation at the Temple Luke also describes is not surprising as Bethlehem and Jerusalem are pretty close - about a day's journey.
What we often read from Luke is that the family returned to Galilee immediately after that. But a) that is an assumption and b) Joseph essentially setting up home and work in Bethlehem for a while (with the new family) makes sense.
Moreover, if that is the case, then Luke offers no explanation for why they returned to Galilee.
All this is speculation but it's not a strain. The actual text in both accounts says very little.
No, the much more challenging issue is that Luke (potentially) places Jesus' birth during the governorship of Quirinius whilst Matthew ties it to the end of Herod's reign.
I must admit that I remain puzzled by the determination shown sometimes to "prove" Luke right over Quirinius. At the end of the day, it's a minor point of dating and doesn't really affect the reliability of Luke's testimony in any way. It seems to make more sense to me to say "this census of Quirinius didn't happen when Herod the Great was alive" than to force hypothetical solutions that can seem a little far-fetched. The evidence we have is that Quirinius (almost certainly) wasn't governor of Syria when Jesus was born. We also have no evidence that any census taken by Quirinius (or by any one else, for that matter) required people to travel to their "home" town.
The evidence that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great consists entirely of Matthew's nativity account. So whether Jesus was born during Herod's reign or the Quirinius census depends on whether you consider Matthew or Luke the more reliable source. The only problem you get (other than the plot-drive inaccuracies of how Roman censuses were conducted) is when you try to make a pastiche of the two accounts. Magi and the heavenly host. Shepherds and Herod. A trip to the Jerusalem temple and the flight to Egypt.
Do Borg & Crossan discuss the question if the translation of Luke 2.1?
The Greek is αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This has usually been translated as ‘this was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ but it can also be translated as ‘this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.
Would this be because Luke didn't know who was governor at that time ?
Do Borg & Crossan discuss the question if the translation of Luke 2.1?
The Greek is αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This has usually been translated as ‘this was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ but it can also be translated as ‘this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.
Would this be because Luke didn't know who was governor at that time ?
No, because Romans didn't conduct censuses of their client states (like Herodian Judea). The whole point of having a client state is that local administrative matters are handled by the client ruler(s). The Quirinius census was the first Roman census conducted of Judea because that was the point (6 CE) where local rule was abolished and direct Roman administration was imposed on Judea (but not Galilee). Any time prior to Quirinius being legatus of Syria would have been a time when Cæsar Augustus wouldn't have had the authority (or inclination) to conduct a census of Judea.
I must admit that I remain puzzled by the determination shown sometimes to "prove" Luke right over Quirinius. At the end of the day, it's a minor point of dating and doesn't really affect the reliability of Luke's testimony in any way. It seems to make more sense to me to say "this census of Quirinius didn't happen when Herod the Great was alive" than to force hypothetical solutions that can seem a little far-fetched. The evidence we have is that Quirinius (almost certainly) wasn't governor of Syria when Jesus was born. We also have no evidence that any census taken by Quirinius (or by any one else, for that matter) required people to travel to their "home" town.
The evidence that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great consists entirely of Matthew's nativity account. So whether Jesus was born during Herod's reign or the Quirinius census depends on whether you consider Matthew or Luke the more reliable source. The only problem you get (other than the plot-drive inaccuracies of how Roman censuses were conducted) is when you try to make a pastiche of the two accounts. Magi and the heavenly host. Shepherds and Herod. A trip to the Jerusalem temple and the flight to Egypt.
Well, if you're absolutely determined to see the two accounts as excluding one another, go for it. I could easily produce a matching pair of accounts of my own son's birth, one of which would be all about the sunny wonderful miracle baby and how he was welcomed into the world and the local community--and the other a dark tale, filled with fear and the shadow of death, with sinister characters lurking in the background--and I wouldn't even have to be trying. All I'd need would be two separate Ship threads, one of which was sunny, upbeat, and reminded me of my son's birth--and the other of which was altogether grimmer, dealing with the kind of issues that terrify parents--and reminded me of my son's birth.
And both accounts would be totally true and unstrained. The difference between them would be totally down to authorial selection of details to fit the purpose of the moment. And in my case, unlike the Gospels, there would be a single author. The accounts would still be unacceptably divergent by your standards.
A pastiche could relatively easily bring the two accounts together. I could speculate and put the following outline out there:
1. During the reign of Herod, Joseph travels to work in Nazareth (possibly the labour needed nearby) and meets Mary, but still retains his ties to Bethlehem - ie: he knows the building work won't last for ever and intends to return home. There's some angelic messages at that point.
2. Augustus decides to update the records of how much tax he can claim and organises a census. Herod decides that this is a good idea and organises his own census at about the same time. This census happens before the Romans take over Judea. Joseph decides that it's time to go home to Bethlehem, and so it makes sense to him to make that move at this time rather than register in Nazareth and then move a few months later.
3. This move somewhat surprises his family, and his room at home is no longer available. Double shock when he turns up with a wife who is heavily pregnant. The only space available for the child to be born is the downstairs space with the animals.
4. Angels visit shepherds, shepherds visit the downstairs room.
5. At the appropriate time, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to be presented at the temple, then return to their new home in Bethlehem (by which time the family have sorted things out so he has a room)
6. Magi turn up in Jerusalem, then Bethlehem, to present their gifts to a child who could easily now be a toddler. Warnings in dreams and Joseph packs up for the safety of Egypt.
7. Herod dies, Judea passes into Roman control and the new governor holds another census to see how many people he has to extract taxes from.
8. Joseph feels it's safe, but doesn't go back to Bethlehem (where everyone knows he scarpered just before soldiers arrived from Herod looking for his son and killing the sons of his friends and neighbours - that would be a very awkward situation for all) and instead goes to the only other place he knows, Nazareth.
It may be a load of rubbish, but providing the translation that the census where Joseph goes to Bethlehem is the one before the census of Quirinius it holds together without too much effort. It needs the records of the censuses to have been lost (not impossible), but taking a census when taking over new territory isn't an improbable scenario anyway even without a record of it surviving outwith the Gospels.
We also have no evidence that any census taken by Quirinius (or by any one else, for that matter) required people to travel to their "home" town.
Against Luke, I have seen it said that (a) a census of Judea would not have included Joseph and Mary, because they were living in Galilee, and (b) there is no evidence of any Roman census, ever, that required people to travel to the lands of their ancestors.
Both these considerations sound to me like compelling arguments.
You seem to be missing the possibility--likelihood, even--that Joseph had immediate family ties in Bethlehem. Saying that he's of the house and lineage of David does NOT rule out having family in Bethlehem--quite the opposite. By Joseph's day I expect there was virtually nobody in
Bethlehem who did not have royal ancestry. David got around. Referring to his lineage serves a double purpose--the theological one of tying him to the Messianic promise, and the practical one of explaining "why Bethlehem." To be sure, Luke could have said simply "Joseph had family in Bethlehem," but that would have served only half his purpose.
I rather suspect that what lies behind some of this incredulity on the thread is the idea that people simply didn't meet and marry across 90 miles of distance in those days. Which would be more of a concern for me if it weren't for Mary's cousin Elizabeth, living in the Shepelah of Judea, even further away from Nazareth than Bethlehem. And her husband Zechariah, who clearly traveled for his work on a regular basis.
But what is Luke saying (in 2:3-4) about the purpose of Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem? Was he required to go there under the law governing census-taking in the Roman Empire? Or did he just happen to be there, on a private family visit, at the time the census was being taken?
I must admit that I remain puzzled by the determination shown sometimes to "prove" Luke right over Quirinius. At the end of the day, it's a minor point of dating and doesn't really affect the reliability of Luke's testimony in any way. It seems to make more sense to me to say "this census of Quirinius didn't happen when Herod the Great was alive" than to force hypothetical solutions that can seem a little far-fetched. The evidence we have is that Quirinius (almost certainly) wasn't governor of Syria when Jesus was born. We also have no evidence that any census taken by Quirinius (or by any one else, for that matter) required people to travel to their "home" town.
The evidence that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great consists entirely of Matthew's nativity account. So whether Jesus was born during Herod's reign or the Quirinius census depends on whether you consider Matthew or Luke the more reliable source. The only problem you get (other than the plot-drive inaccuracies of how Roman censuses were conducted) is when you try to make a pastiche of the two accounts. Magi and the heavenly host. Shepherds and Herod. A trip to the Jerusalem temple and the flight to Egypt.
No, I don't think this follows at all.
Luke says the following:
1. Because of the census, Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem.
2. Whilst there, Jesus was born
3. Shepherds came to visit the newborn
4. They went up to Jerusalem to complete the rites specified by the law of Moses
5. After that they went back to Galilee
Matthew says:
1. Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem
2. A group of Magi come looking for him in Jerusalem
3. The Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem
4. To avoid Herod's genocide of local infant boys,the family flee to Egypt
5. After Herod dies the family return to Galilee.
Now, I haven't addressed the separate historic referencing here, but there is no pastiche. The only way - literally the only way - there is any contradiction here is if you insist on things that aren't there. Matthew does not say that the Magi were Jesus' first visitors and Luke does not say (although it's easy to read it that way) that the Holy Family went direct from Jerusalem back to Galilee.
However, as I've said I don't know the Greek, so if I have misunderstood the sense here, then I could be wrong.
Well, if Joseph regards Bethlehem as his home (as I regarded California for far too many years after I left it as a young adult), my guess is he took it to be the natural place to register. My son is in Minnesota at school and registered to vote here in Missouri in spite of the hassles in getting his ballot to him (pandemic travel being a bad, bad idea then). Joseph may very well have intended to marry his wife and bring her back to Bethlehem all along. We simply don't know. Jesus' birth derailed all their plans, whatever they may have been.
Is it possible, for instance, under Jewish law — not under Roman law, in this case — that Joseph might have forfeited certain family rights if he were officially no longer resident in Bethlehem? Land ownership, inheritance, etc., were presumably still entirely in the hands of the Jewish legal system. I believe the Roman practice was to leave legal matters of that kind, in the farflung colonies, to the local ruling elites, which in the case of Judea would have been the High Priest and the Sanhedrin.
We also have no evidence that any census taken by Quirinius (or by any one else, for that matter) required people to travel to their "home" town.
Against Luke, I have seen it said that (a) a census of Judea would not have included Joseph and Mary, because they were living in Galilee, and (b) there is no evidence of any Roman census, ever, that required people to travel to the lands of their ancestors.
Both these considerations sound to me like compelling arguments.
It's not remotely compelling. Essentially it comes down to we have no other evidence of it happening the way Luke describes, therefore Luke must be wrong. The unspoken assumption here is that it is likely that such evidence would have survived to the 21st century. That's simply not true. In fact, it's the opposite of true. Apart from the New Testament writings, very few manuscripts from antiquity survive. Thus arguments from silence are not compelling at all.
It's sort of weird to get all suspicious about the Gospels and to basically give other ancient texts the benefit of the doubt. I don't see near this level of OMG-he-must-be-a-liar-or-just-wrong-because-we-know-better-don't-we default attitude in regards to Josephus, or Pliny, or Tacitus...
It's sort of weird to get all suspicious about the Gospels and to basically give other ancient texts the benefit of the doubt. I don't see near this level of OMG-he-must-be-a-liar-or-just-wrong-because-we-know-better-don't-we default attitude in regards to Josephus, or Pliny, or Tacitus...
Do Borg & Crossan discuss the question if the translation of Luke 2.1?
The Greek is αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This has usually been translated as ‘this was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ but it can also be translated as ‘this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.
Would this be because Luke didn't know who was governor at that time ?
No, because Romans didn't conduct censuses of their client states (like Herodian Judea). The whole point of having a client state is that local administrative matters are handled by the client ruler(s). The Quirinius census was the first Roman census conducted of Judea because that was the point (6 CE) where local rule was abolished and direct Roman administration was imposed on Judea (but not Galilee). Any time prior to Quirinius being legatus of Syria would have been a time when Cæsar Augustus wouldn't have had the authority (or inclination) to conduct a census of Judea.
Matthew 2.9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.
This has always puzzled me. How does one know what is exactly underneath a star. Stars are Suns in their own star system. Was it an actual star ? Did this 'star' drop down from the sky and hover above when Jesus was ?
It is for this reason that I prefer the nativity stories in Mark and John.
FWIW, and at the risk of going all credibile quia impossibile*, the apparent unlikeliness of the census is one reason why I don't think Luke just made it up as a plot device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.
ISTM that if you were going to make up a plot device, you would make up something that actually made sense. On the face of it, it's like if you were writing a story set in 1950, and you needed the characters to be in South Wales for some reason, and instead of making up a legacy or a family wedding or something, you decided that the 1950 census required them to register in Pembroke because they were descendants of Henry VII.
To my mind, either of the following is more likely:
1. Luke's source had garbled the details over time, and Luke did the best of a bad job;
2. Luke missed off a detail somewhere - e.g. Joseph always lived in Bethlehem (which would match Matthew), his engagement to Mary was at a distance**, Luke 2:4 is missing the detail that he travelled up to Nazareth to collect Mary, and then set off with her to Bethlehem, so that they could be registered as a single household.
* It's believable because it's impossible, i.e., no-one would make it up.
** Since Mary had family down south, it's entirely possible that they were married by arrangement through some extended family connection. It's also implicit in Matthew that they were living some distance apart, since otherwise one would have thought Joseph would have found out about Mary's pregnancy directly from Mary, rather than through whatever source is implied by 'she was found to be pregnant'.
Interesting point about the unlikeliness. Thank you!
I would expect that Joseph and Mary were related in some degree, as this is one of the cultures that had a tendency to marry off cousins to one another (witness Abraham's family tree, for instance). A desire to continue that custom while NOT marrying within the relatively tiny pool of people available in Nazareth might explain a lot.
Do Borg & Crossan discuss the question if the translation of Luke 2.1?
The Greek is αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This has usually been translated as ‘this was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ but it can also be translated as ‘this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.
Massive caveat: I'm not a Greek scholar and this is just based on what I've read about this specific issue, but AIUI the second reading is extremely awkward syntactically.
The phrase translated as 'when Quirinius was governor of Syria' is literally 'governing Syria Quirinius', with 'governing' being a present participle in the genitive case, and Quirinius also in the genitive. Normally a participle + noun in the genitive case is the Greek equivalent of the Latin 'ablative absolute', and implies 'this happened while this was happening', hence, 'when Quirinius was governor of Syria'.
πρώτη in this reading is an adjective meaning 'first' and goes with ἀπογραφὴ (census).
πρώτη can also be a preposition meaning 'before'. As a preposition it takes the genitive case, so the temptation is to join it to the participle + noun that we previously identified as an ablative absolute. The problems are a.) you have to explain how ἐγένετο 'it came to pass' has strayed between the preposition and its object; b.) there's limited evidence, in Greek, of πρώτη being used before a participle in this way (i.e., you can use it in phrases like 'before lunchtime', but not 'before the servants serving lunch', which sounds unnatural in English too).
Interesting point about the unlikeliness. Thank you!
I would expect that Joseph and Mary were related in some degree, as this is one of the cultures that had a tendency to marry off cousins to one another (witness Abraham's family tree, for instance). A desire to continue that custom while NOT marrying within the relatively tiny pool of people available in Nazareth might explain a lot.
Yes - I was thinking that if Mary had a cousin in Judaea, and felt close enough to her to rush off to see her after the Annunciation, then maybe Mary's immediate family had only recently migrated north from Judaea, and then the situation wouldn't be much different from (say) a British Asian woman getting engaged to a cousin in Pakistan.
(Of course I don't know if that sort of thing happened in those days, and of course the migration might have been in the opposite direction, i.e. Elizabeth to Judaea rather than Mary to Galilee.)
There's also the fact that Elizabeth is married to a priest (tribe of Levi) while Mary is apparently from the tribe of Judah (David's line), so there are other lines being crossed besides the geographical.
Interesting point about the unlikeliness. Thank you!
I would expect that Joseph and Mary were related in some degree, as this is one of the cultures that had a tendency to marry off cousins to one another (witness Abraham's family tree, for instance). A desire to continue that custom while NOT marrying within the relatively tiny pool of people available in Nazareth might explain a lot.
Yes, I was thinking along similar lines. It is certainly possible that Joseph was not resident in Nazareth before marrying Mary. An arranged match with a distant(ish) cousin is consistent with what we know of the culture.
As to the unlikeliness point, I agree completely. There are lots of aspects to the Gospel accounts (especially Luke's) that do not read like fiction at all - lots of details that make no sense unless Luke believed them to be true.
The following is something I read a long time ago and I cannot remember where, so I apologise that I cannot reference it and if someone debunks it I will admit my failings...
However, as I understand it; in the 19th century, most scholars believed that the Romans never held any censuses (censi?) and thus it was argued that Luke had simply made it up (presumably to get Jesus to Bethlehem). Apparently, there was no evidence anywhere that any Roman census had taken place.
Then the evidence was found in Egypt that the Romans had indeed held at least one census. And so the argument becomes - well the Romans might have held a census but it wasn't done the way Luke described, so Luke must still be wrong...
As I said, the arguments from silence do not impress me very much. Luke's gospel contains a lot of geographical references with contemporarily correct place-names (this one I do have a reference for). "So what?" you might say, but this is a good test of veracity in that place-names change, borders move, and non-contemporary writers often get these things wrong. Luke's attention to detail is evident here. Thus his description of the census is one that I would certainly accept at first glance unless there's a good reason not to. My point here is simply that the evidence we have for how the Romans conducted a census at one point does not mean that the census described by Luke could not have happened as he described.
I love it. Luke got it completely wrong. And it's trivial. They were crap historiographers. None of which affects the greatest claim there could and will ever be.
There's also the fact that Elizabeth is married to a priest (tribe of Levi) while Mary is apparently from the tribe of Judah (David's line), so there are other lines being crossed besides the geographical.
I read somewhere that the requirement for priests to marry only within the tribe of Levi had been dropped several centuries earlier. Unfortunately, however, once again, I can't quote a source for that.
Now, I haven't addressed the separate historic referencing here, but there is no pastiche. The only way - literally the only way - there is any contradiction here is if you insist on things that aren't there. Matthew does not say that the Magi were Jesus' first visitors and Luke does not say (although it's easy to read it that way) that the Holy Family went direct from Jerusalem back to Galilee.
However, as I've said I don't know the Greek, so if I have misunderstood the sense here, then I could be wrong.
Yeah, Luke does say they go to Nazareth right after Jerusalem.
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
Lest you think I'm playing with translations, the Greek word "ὡς" translated as "when" is meant to tie to clauses together. In other contexts in can be translated as "like" or "as". In other words it would be deceptive to say "When I completed my business in London I returned to Luton" if there were a multi-month (or possibly multi-year) interval between those two events when you were avoiding a squad of government assassins. The nativity of Jesus is one of those stories where everyone just "knows" how it's supposed to go so they don't bother actually reading it.
However, as I understand it; in the 19th century, most scholars believed that the Romans never held any censuses (censi?) and thus it was argued that Luke had simply made it up (presumably to get Jesus to Bethlehem). Apparently, there was no evidence anywhere that any Roman census had taken place.
I'm not sure that's a real thing. With their obsession with the Roman Republic/Imperium 19th century scholars would have been aware of the existence of the Censors, public officials who conducted the census (and banned smut, hence the English word "censorship"). In the days of the Republic the census served an even more important purpose since freeborn males of a certain age were expected to serve in Rome's armies and the state needed to know how many men were available in any given region. This function became less important after the reforms of Marius and the transition to a professional military. Heck, the Marian reforms were in many ways based on census counts.
There's also the fact that Elizabeth is married to a priest (tribe of Levi) while Mary is apparently from the tribe of Judah (David's line), so there are other lines being crossed besides the geographical.
I read somewhere that the requirement for priests to marry only within the tribe of Levi had been dropped several centuries earlier. Unfortunately, however, once again, I can't quote a source for that.
Actually, there was no such biblical requirement except for the high priest, who was obliged to marry a Levite virgin (Levitcus 21:14). In his case I think it was all about securing the high priestly bloodline. We know that Aaron himself married a Judahite woman--one of Jesus' collateral ancestors in fact, Elisheba, sister of Nahshon (Exodus 6:23), though this took place before the aforementioned ruling. I wouldn't swear to it that the rules and regs in this regard hadn't multiplied by the time of Jesus, however--plenty of others had.
Now, I haven't addressed the separate historic referencing here, but there is no pastiche. The only way - literally the only way - there is any contradiction here is if you insist on things that aren't there. Matthew does not say that the Magi were Jesus' first visitors and Luke does not say (although it's easy to read it that way) that the Holy Family went direct from Jerusalem back to Galilee.
However, as I've said I don't know the Greek, so if I have misunderstood the sense here, then I could be wrong.
Yeah, Luke does say they go to Nazareth right after Jerusalem.
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
Lest you think I'm playing with translations, the Greek word "ὡς" translated as "when" is meant to tie to clauses together. In other contexts in can be translated as "like" or "as". In other words it would be deceptive to say "When I completed my business in London I returned to Luton" if there were a multi-month (or possibly multi-year) interval between those two events when you were avoiding a squad of government assassins. The nativity of Jesus is one of those stories where everyone just "knows" how it's supposed to go so they don't bother actually reading it.
This is another place where we have to be really careful about making assumptions based on modern ideas. In a modern biography we would fault somebody for skipping over such a dramatic and life-changing episode, and the whole "after... they returned" construction would therefore stink of subterfuge. I really hesitate to say the same about ancient writings, which are far less anal about timing and getting everything all scheduled out and chronological. We would call it playing fast and loose with the events; they would very likely squint at us and wonder what all the fussing was about, particularly if/because they knew that another account existed, and we could get the episode there if we were so determined to have it, in spite of authorial intention.
But Luke has Mary and Joseph at the temple with a six-week-old baby, whereas the word Matthew uses for the child seen by the Magi implies an older child. IOW the visit of the Magi significantly post-dates the presentation in the temple. [Cross-posted with Lamb Chopped]
Massive caveat: I'm not a Greek scholar and this is just based on what I've read about this specific issue, but AIUI the second reading is extremely awkward syntactically.
The phrase translated as 'when Quirinius was governor of Syria' is literally 'governing Syria Quirinius', with 'governing' being a present participle in the genitive case, and Quirinius also in the genitive. Normally a participle + noun in the genitive case is the Greek equivalent of the Latin 'ablative absolute', and implies 'this happened while this was happening', hence, 'when Quirinius was governor of Syria'.
πρώτη in this reading is an adjective meaning 'first' and goes with ἀπογραφὴ (census).
πρώτη can also be a preposition meaning 'before'. As a preposition it takes the genitive case, so the temptation is to join it to the participle + noun that we previously identified as an ablative absolute. The problems are a.) you have to explain how ἐγένετο 'it came to pass' has strayed between the preposition and its object; b.) there's limited evidence, in Greek, of πρώτη being used before a participle in this way (i.e., you can use it in phrases like 'before lunchtime', but not 'before the servants serving lunch', which sounds unnatural in English too).
I too am not a Greek scholar. My source was Tom Wright’s Who was Jesus - cited more fully here along with a wider discussion by Ian Paul.
Herod kills children under 2 years of age, in accordance with the time the Magi told him the star had appeared. The natural conclusion, I should think, is that Jesus was about 2 years old at the time.
Herod kills children under 2 years of age, in accordance with the time the Magi told him the star had appeared. The natural conclusion, I should think, is that Jesus was about 2 years old at the time.
I wouldn't expect him to mention it, honestly. If he even heard. I mean, Herod did so many flashier horrible things, and these are just village children, no big deal in comparison with killing one's own royal family, or arranging to murder the Jewish leadership wholesale (fortunately foiled). I expect this would be very small potatoes to an ancient historian writing about Herod's misdeeds.
2. Luke missed off a detail somewhere - e.g. Joseph always lived in Bethlehem (which would match Matthew), his engagement to Mary was at a distance**, Luke 2:4 is missing the detail that he travelled up to Nazareth to collect Mary, and then set off with her to Bethlehem, so that they could be registered as a single household.
.
** Since Mary had family down south, it's entirely possible that they were married by arrangement through some extended family connection. It's also implicit in Matthew that they were living some distance apart, since otherwise one would have thought Joseph would have found out about Mary's pregnancy directly from Mary, rather than through whatever source is implied by 'she was found to be pregnant'.
And to take it a bit further, living at a distance would make it impossible for Joseph to be the father of the child. It would have been pretty obvious had he dashed off the Nazareth for the weekend.
To my mind, either of the following is more likely:
1. Luke's source had garbled the details over time, and Luke did the best of a bad job;
2. Luke missed off a detail somewhere - e.g. Joseph always lived in Bethlehem (which would match Matthew), his engagement to Mary was at a distance**, Luke 2:4 is missing the detail that he travelled up to Nazareth to collect Mary, and then set off with her to Bethlehem, so that they could be registered as a single household.
But neither of these interpretations are acceptable to today's fundamentalist interpreters. They insist on the premises that:
Luke is inerrantly correct on all specifics,
Matthew is inerrently correct on all specifics, and
Matthew and Luke are in total agreement on all points and do not contradict each other in any way
Hence the insistence on ever more strained harmonizations between the two accounts. For example:
It's highly unlikely the Magi had shown up by the time Jesus was 40 days old and being presented at the temple.
Luke says the Holy Family's peregrinations were Nazareth-Bethlethem-Jerusalem-Nazareth. Matthew says it was Bethlehem-Egypt-Nazareth. @Lamb Chopped says it was Nazareth to Bethlehem to Jerusalem, then back to Bethlehem to make that meeting with the Magi the Holy Family knew about (somehow) then Egypt and the Nazareth again. This is not apparent from either of the texts available and only emerges if you're ironbound to the premises above (i.e. both accounts are inerrant and non-contradictory).
I would. Josephus loved lovedLOVED detailing the atrocities of Herod the Great in as lurid a fashion as possible. We know of the other atrocities you mention primarily from Josephus. If he's going to detail the punishment of the eagle-stealers (Google it), who were also commoners, I see no reason why he would exclude a slaughter of small children. This is first century Judea we're talking about. That's something that would be expected of the Assyrians seven centuries earlier but would be very out of place by the first century CE. It would have been noticed.
Herod kills children under 2 years of age, in accordance with the time the Magi told him the star had appeared. The natural conclusion, I should think, is that Jesus was about 2 years old at the time.
Not necessarily. It's a fairly easy dividing line. By two years old almost every child capable of walking is doing so. It's a simple standard to use without having to expect that your political murder squads are also experts in child development. You don't want your two year old future deposer to escape your assassination squad because they thought he looked more like he was 27 months old.
I find your post confusing. You take me for a fundamentalist?
You appear to find some contradiction between the idea that the Magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem when he was two or under, and the fact that his parents took him to the temple at age 40 days in accordance with Jewish custom and the Law of Moses.
What is the problem with both these things being true?
Seriously. If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as both accounts agree, then why is it so surprising that he gets taken to the temple 40 days later? Common sense would have the family still resident in Bethlehem at that point--it's no easy thing to travel anywhere with a newborn and with a woman still experiencing postpartum pain, swelling and bleeding. Jerusalem is only a couple of miles or so up the road if they stay put. Given Mary's physical state plus the religious requirements coming up so soon after birth, and it's an easy decision. Stay in Bethlehem for at least six weeks.
As for the Magi, you're the one who cast doubt on the 40 day temple visit because you somehow got the Magi arriving on the scene way too early. I don't see anyone else here who takes the position that they arrived when Jesus was a newborn. What have the two events got to do with each other at all?
As for Josephus and Herod's massacre--this is going to be a waste of time, because it's just trading assertions, but whatever. My understanding of the ancient world in this time and place is that children were just. not. that. important in the grand scheme of things, especially when they were ordinary village children of no particular wealth or family. What are we talking here, the death of a couple dozen babies tops? And that may be pushing it. There is no social media, there are no broadcasts, and the people affected are mainly shepherds and farmers and tradesmen. Horrible things happened to children all over the Roman empire and not much notice was taken. Exposure, abandonment, enslavement... It makes sense for Josephus and other historians to care about Herod's atrocities with regards to the rich, famous, and well-connected. They are also far more likely to hear about those stories in the first place.
You are arguing from silence. Do you not realize how weak an argument that is? "Josephus doesn't record it, so it clearly didn't happen."
Of course Josephus details the eagle thing. (Yes, I had heard of it before, thank you.) Josephus is interested in Jewish politics and particularly in conflicts with the Romans. Acts of religious heroism would be right up his alley. This incident was highly public and fits his interests. No surprises there. Why do you bring it up--because you think I was arguing that Josephus would never ever mention a commoner? Nothing of the sort.
And I don't understand this. You say:
Not necessarily. It's a fairly easy dividing line. By two years old almost every child capable of walking is doing so. It's a simple standard to use without having to expect that your political murder squads are also experts in child development. You don't want your two year old future deposer to escape your assassination squad because they thought he looked more like he was 27 months old.
Are you saying that the soldiers went in and killed every child who couldn't walk--which would mean missing out most children between one and two years of age, which is contrary to their instructions. Or do you mean that they killed every child who could walk--in which case they will catch the 1 year olds and up, but miss out on the infants who were supposed to be included? Not to mention the fact that it can be difficult to tell the difference between a two year old and a three year old unless you spend a lot of time with the nursery set, which I doubt most soldiers did. What was the point of bringing up walking at all?
No, that doesn't work. You are insisting Luke contradicts something Matthew doesn't say.
Matthew does not say that the Magi visited Jesus as a neonate. In fact, the story and the language imply that Jesus could not have been that young.
Luke emphasises that the Jewish Law was followed concerning rites after childbirth.
Luke's story of presentation at the Temple means that the Holy Family stayed in Bethlehem for over a month after Jesus was born. Given the geography, travelling between Bethlehem and Jerusalem makes sense.
The key here is Luke 2:39: When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. [NIV]
If Luke here really means that they went from Jerusalem back to Nazareth then that conflicts with Matthew's account of the Magi visiting the infant in Bethlehem. Conversely, if Luke is simply saying that J & M followed the Law, whilst still residing in Bethlehem, then returned to Nazareth, there is no conflict.
This is where my ignorance of Greek becomes a problem for me.
Lest you think I'm playing with translations, the Greek word "ὡς" translated as "when" is meant to tie to clauses together. In other contexts in can be translated as "like" or "as". In other words it would be deceptive to say "When I completed my business in London I returned to Luton" if there were a multi-month (or possibly multi-year) interval between those two events when you were avoiding a squad of government assassins. The nativity of Jesus is one of those stories where everyone just "knows" how it's supposed to go so they don't bother actually reading it.
I don't think you're playing with the translations. And thank you for the Greek:
"ὡς"
"when" or "like" or "as".
Hmmm... so after the Temple, they went back to Nazareth. I think insisting that Luke means they definitely weren't in Bethlehem after this point before returning to Nazareth (I.e. they weren't in Bethlehem when Matthew says they were) is making that one word do a lot of work. However, that is a better argument than implying that Matthew puts the Magi before the Temple as that's not what Matthew says.
In other words the desire to harmonize between the two different nativities often serves to obscure what the authors are trying to actually tell us.
I agree with @Crœsos on this point, and I think it's an important one. In recent years I've come to see a lot more emphasis and editorial choice in the Gospel narratives to highlight key theological points beloved of each author.
By default, I still tend to take the narratives at face value and to be honest, find the apparent discrepancies about the holy familiy's itinerary, etc. just sort of fade into comfortable cognitive dissonance for me.
I find some of the explanations generally given for this sort of thing contrived to say the least (I recall one preacher trying to harmonise the resurrection appearances of Christ by claiming Thomas was in the toilet when Jesus appeared to the other eleven).
In the same way, I find some of the objections to the apparent discrepancies generally put forward equally contrived. The elaborate speculation they involve somehow seems to be as fundamentalist as the theories they oppose.
It's fun and sometimes instructive to try and thrash these things out, and I do believe they are based on historical substance, with a special preference for Luke in this respect, but it would indeed be a shame if any attempt to stitch the Gospels into one two-dimensional, seamless, factually accurate picture (presumably on the debatable grounds that they could not otherwise be "true") blinded us readers to a third dimension, that of the theological message of the evangelists.
Comments
I wasn't thinking they'd not generally travel so much as speculating that moving to another region to work might have been less common. I have family from Lebanon, and there are apparently villages there where the same families have lived pretty much back to Bible times.
(Have you seen The First Paul?)
This detail in Luke isn't the kind of thing I can get worked up enough about to go out and buy a book to check up on.
Perhaps Borg and Crossan are right that this is a bit of metaphor by Luke. Certainly I think there's more metaphor in the Gospel stories than might first meet the modern eye (although as has been pointed out, that seems less likely from the pen of Luke given his statd aim). But I am sceptical about hanging any explanation on such an assured view of what did and didn't go on in a bureaucracy 2,000 years ago on the basis of the extant record, all the more so if the attempted census turned out to be a fiasco, as @Rufus T Firefly, who also quotes from the book, tells us they say would have been the case.
Eight or so years ago France rolled out a nationwide system to tax trucks on motorways, and got as far as erecting a whole series of gantries with CCTV everywhere across the land for enforcement and setting up an entire quango to collect the taxes. This being France, and it being possible to bring these down by the simple expedient of setting fire to a pile of tyres around the base of each gantry, the inevitable happened. At a very late stage, the entire initiative was scrapped; today, round where I live I can think of only two surviving gantries and I suspect a lot of people already don't know or remember what they were for.
The whole thing was a national embarassment of which I doubt any accurate record will be widely known in a couple of decades, let alone a couple of millenia.
Such a thing having happened at the time of Jesus' birth doesn't seem any more speculative to me than the possibility of things having happened as Luke described and us simply not knowing about it from the historical record.
The Greek is αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. This has usually been translated as ‘this was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria’ but it can also be translated as ‘this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.
Sorry, last para should read:
Such a thing having happened at the time of Jesus' birth pretty much as Luke described and us simply not knowing about it from the historical record doesn't seem any more speculative to me than the Borg and Crossan explanation.
I also find it fascinating that we've lost much of the context, the understanding of the Roman world of the time of Jesus, and that much of the Gospels appear to have been written to contrast with that situation.
And in addition, looking at both Nativity stories, as I mentioned on the previous page:
If the "cultural assumption" is that the Bible should be understood in all points like a secondary school history textbook, and if it's not true in all points in similar fashion then there's a big problem (which seems to be where some fundamentalists start out) then yes, that's a cultural assumption that will get in the way.
If the "cultural assumption" is essentially dismissing everything that doesn't immediately appear self-evident on the basis of "we know much better than that now" - including when a gospel author explicitly claims to be setting out a documented historical account - and shoehorning in a lot of contemporary explanation, then that can also get in the way; that's hubris. Looking back I think not a few self-assured declarations of the like have ultimately been shot to pieces by the archeological record.
To my mind the first step to overcoming cultural assumptions is to have a degree of humility about one's own explanations. That's not a vibe I'm getting from the Borg and Crossman quotes. I could well be wrong about the Luke census merely being a first-century bureaucratic snafu that was quietly buried by the official record, I'm not suggesting it's definitive, and I'm not going to think the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales if the census didn't actually happen as described. I'm just saying my explanation seems just as plausible to me as theirs, and a lot simpler.
None of those theories explain the other differences between the two Nativity narratives as to whether the journey to Bethlehem happened at all. When one narrative describes it and the other doesn't there is a question mark.
Not really.
The first thing to say is that - as you know - the two other Gospels don't even have a Nativity story. So the most obvious observation is that different writers considered different things important.
The second thing is to grasp that an understanding of the Nativity as depicted in Western culture as all happening on one night with Magi and Shepherds at the same time is not what is implied at all.
If we posit that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Joseph had kinfolk in the area, it is very likely that the little family stayed there a while with Joseph working as a Carpenter in that town. The manger itself means the downstairs room of a house not a stable. But after a few days, they may well have found somewhere more permanent.
Matthew describes Herod wanting all boys under 2 years to be killed. This suggests very strongly that it wasn't a newborn he was looking for!
The presentation at the Temple Luke also describes is not surprising as Bethlehem and Jerusalem are pretty close - about a day's journey.
What we often read from Luke is that the family returned to Galilee immediately after that. But a) that is an assumption and b) Joseph essentially setting up home and work in Bethlehem for a while (with the new family) makes sense.
Moreover, if that is the case, then Luke offers no explanation for why they returned to Galilee.
All this is speculation but it's not a strain. The actual text in both accounts says very little.
No, the much more challenging issue is that Luke (potentially) places Jesus' birth during the governorship of Quirinius whilst Matthew ties it to the end of Herod's reign.
AFZ
The evidence that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great consists entirely of Matthew's nativity account. So whether Jesus was born during Herod's reign or the Quirinius census depends on whether you consider Matthew or Luke the more reliable source. The only problem you get (other than the plot-drive inaccuracies of how Roman censuses were conducted) is when you try to make a pastiche of the two accounts. Magi and the heavenly host. Shepherds and Herod. A trip to the Jerusalem temple and the flight to Egypt.
Would this be because Luke didn't know who was governor at that time ?
No, because Romans didn't conduct censuses of their client states (like Herodian Judea). The whole point of having a client state is that local administrative matters are handled by the client ruler(s). The Quirinius census was the first Roman census conducted of Judea because that was the point (6 CE) where local rule was abolished and direct Roman administration was imposed on Judea (but not Galilee). Any time prior to Quirinius being legatus of Syria would have been a time when Cæsar Augustus wouldn't have had the authority (or inclination) to conduct a census of Judea.
Well, if you're absolutely determined to see the two accounts as excluding one another, go for it. I could easily produce a matching pair of accounts of my own son's birth, one of which would be all about the sunny wonderful miracle baby and how he was welcomed into the world and the local community--and the other a dark tale, filled with fear and the shadow of death, with sinister characters lurking in the background--and I wouldn't even have to be trying. All I'd need would be two separate Ship threads, one of which was sunny, upbeat, and reminded me of my son's birth--and the other of which was altogether grimmer, dealing with the kind of issues that terrify parents--and reminded me of my son's birth.
And both accounts would be totally true and unstrained. The difference between them would be totally down to authorial selection of details to fit the purpose of the moment. And in my case, unlike the Gospels, there would be a single author. The accounts would still be unacceptably divergent by your standards.
Why is this so hard to understand?
1. During the reign of Herod, Joseph travels to work in Nazareth (possibly the labour needed nearby) and meets Mary, but still retains his ties to Bethlehem - ie: he knows the building work won't last for ever and intends to return home. There's some angelic messages at that point.
2. Augustus decides to update the records of how much tax he can claim and organises a census. Herod decides that this is a good idea and organises his own census at about the same time. This census happens before the Romans take over Judea. Joseph decides that it's time to go home to Bethlehem, and so it makes sense to him to make that move at this time rather than register in Nazareth and then move a few months later.
3. This move somewhat surprises his family, and his room at home is no longer available. Double shock when he turns up with a wife who is heavily pregnant. The only space available for the child to be born is the downstairs space with the animals.
4. Angels visit shepherds, shepherds visit the downstairs room.
5. At the appropriate time, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to be presented at the temple, then return to their new home in Bethlehem (by which time the family have sorted things out so he has a room)
6. Magi turn up in Jerusalem, then Bethlehem, to present their gifts to a child who could easily now be a toddler. Warnings in dreams and Joseph packs up for the safety of Egypt.
7. Herod dies, Judea passes into Roman control and the new governor holds another census to see how many people he has to extract taxes from.
8. Joseph feels it's safe, but doesn't go back to Bethlehem (where everyone knows he scarpered just before soldiers arrived from Herod looking for his son and killing the sons of his friends and neighbours - that would be a very awkward situation for all) and instead goes to the only other place he knows, Nazareth.
It may be a load of rubbish, but providing the translation that the census where Joseph goes to Bethlehem is the one before the census of Quirinius it holds together without too much effort. It needs the records of the censuses to have been lost (not impossible), but taking a census when taking over new territory isn't an improbable scenario anyway even without a record of it surviving outwith the Gospels.
Both these considerations sound to me like compelling arguments.
Bethlehem who did not have royal ancestry. David got around. Referring to his lineage serves a double purpose--the theological one of tying him to the Messianic promise, and the practical one of explaining "why Bethlehem." To be sure, Luke could have said simply "Joseph had family in Bethlehem," but that would have served only half his purpose.
I rather suspect that what lies behind some of this incredulity on the thread is the idea that people simply didn't meet and marry across 90 miles of distance in those days. Which would be more of a concern for me if it weren't for Mary's cousin Elizabeth, living in the Shepelah of Judea, even further away from Nazareth than Bethlehem. And her husband Zechariah, who clearly traveled for his work on a regular basis.
No, I don't think this follows at all.
Luke says the following:
1. Because of the census, Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem.
2. Whilst there, Jesus was born
3. Shepherds came to visit the newborn
4. They went up to Jerusalem to complete the rites specified by the law of Moses
5. After that they went back to Galilee
Matthew says:
1. Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem
2. A group of Magi come looking for him in Jerusalem
3. The Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem
4. To avoid Herod's genocide of local infant boys,the family flee to Egypt
5. After Herod dies the family return to Galilee.
Now, I haven't addressed the separate historic referencing here, but there is no pastiche. The only way - literally the only way - there is any contradiction here is if you insist on things that aren't there. Matthew does not say that the Magi were Jesus' first visitors and Luke does not say (although it's easy to read it that way) that the Holy Family went direct from Jerusalem back to Galilee.
However, as I've said I don't know the Greek, so if I have misunderstood the sense here, then I could be wrong.
AFZ
It's not remotely compelling. Essentially it comes down to we have no other evidence of it happening the way Luke describes, therefore Luke must be wrong. The unspoken assumption here is that it is likely that such evidence would have survived to the 21st century. That's simply not true. In fact, it's the opposite of true. Apart from the New Testament writings, very few manuscripts from antiquity survive. Thus arguments from silence are not compelling at all.
AFZ
Exactly.
This has always puzzled me. How does one know what is exactly underneath a star. Stars are Suns in their own star system. Was it an actual star ? Did this 'star' drop down from the sky and hover above when Jesus was ?
It is for this reason that I prefer the nativity stories in Mark and John.
I have no idea about the star either. Or rather, I have a ton of ideas, but a real paucity of evidence to support any of them.
Just have to wait and find out someday.
That's all I need to know
ISTM that if you were going to make up a plot device, you would make up something that actually made sense. On the face of it, it's like if you were writing a story set in 1950, and you needed the characters to be in South Wales for some reason, and instead of making up a legacy or a family wedding or something, you decided that the 1950 census required them to register in Pembroke because they were descendants of Henry VII.
To my mind, either of the following is more likely:
1. Luke's source had garbled the details over time, and Luke did the best of a bad job;
2. Luke missed off a detail somewhere - e.g. Joseph always lived in Bethlehem (which would match Matthew), his engagement to Mary was at a distance**, Luke 2:4 is missing the detail that he travelled up to Nazareth to collect Mary, and then set off with her to Bethlehem, so that they could be registered as a single household.
* It's believable because it's impossible, i.e., no-one would make it up.
** Since Mary had family down south, it's entirely possible that they were married by arrangement through some extended family connection. It's also implicit in Matthew that they were living some distance apart, since otherwise one would have thought Joseph would have found out about Mary's pregnancy directly from Mary, rather than through whatever source is implied by 'she was found to be pregnant'.
I would expect that Joseph and Mary were related in some degree, as this is one of the cultures that had a tendency to marry off cousins to one another (witness Abraham's family tree, for instance). A desire to continue that custom while NOT marrying within the relatively tiny pool of people available in Nazareth might explain a lot.
Massive caveat: I'm not a Greek scholar and this is just based on what I've read about this specific issue, but AIUI the second reading is extremely awkward syntactically.
The phrase translated as 'when Quirinius was governor of Syria' is literally 'governing Syria Quirinius', with 'governing' being a present participle in the genitive case, and Quirinius also in the genitive. Normally a participle + noun in the genitive case is the Greek equivalent of the Latin 'ablative absolute', and implies 'this happened while this was happening', hence, 'when Quirinius was governor of Syria'.
πρώτη in this reading is an adjective meaning 'first' and goes with ἀπογραφὴ (census).
πρώτη can also be a preposition meaning 'before'. As a preposition it takes the genitive case, so the temptation is to join it to the participle + noun that we previously identified as an ablative absolute. The problems are a.) you have to explain how ἐγένετο 'it came to pass' has strayed between the preposition and its object; b.) there's limited evidence, in Greek, of πρώτη being used before a participle in this way (i.e., you can use it in phrases like 'before lunchtime', but not 'before the servants serving lunch', which sounds unnatural in English too).
Yes - I was thinking that if Mary had a cousin in Judaea, and felt close enough to her to rush off to see her after the Annunciation, then maybe Mary's immediate family had only recently migrated north from Judaea, and then the situation wouldn't be much different from (say) a British Asian woman getting engaged to a cousin in Pakistan.
(Of course I don't know if that sort of thing happened in those days, and of course the migration might have been in the opposite direction, i.e. Elizabeth to Judaea rather than Mary to Galilee.)
Yes, I was thinking along similar lines. It is certainly possible that Joseph was not resident in Nazareth before marrying Mary. An arranged match with a distant(ish) cousin is consistent with what we know of the culture.
As to the unlikeliness point, I agree completely. There are lots of aspects to the Gospel accounts (especially Luke's) that do not read like fiction at all - lots of details that make no sense unless Luke believed them to be true.
The following is something I read a long time ago and I cannot remember where, so I apologise that I cannot reference it and if someone debunks it I will admit my failings...
However, as I understand it; in the 19th century, most scholars believed that the Romans never held any censuses (censi?) and thus it was argued that Luke had simply made it up (presumably to get Jesus to Bethlehem). Apparently, there was no evidence anywhere that any Roman census had taken place.
Then the evidence was found in Egypt that the Romans had indeed held at least one census. And so the argument becomes - well the Romans might have held a census but it wasn't done the way Luke described, so Luke must still be wrong...
As I said, the arguments from silence do not impress me very much. Luke's gospel contains a lot of geographical references with contemporarily correct place-names (this one I do have a reference for). "So what?" you might say, but this is a good test of veracity in that place-names change, borders move, and non-contemporary writers often get these things wrong. Luke's attention to detail is evident here. Thus his description of the census is one that I would certainly accept at first glance unless there's a good reason not to. My point here is simply that the evidence we have for how the Romans conducted a census at one point does not mean that the census described by Luke could not have happened as he described.
AFZ
I read somewhere that the requirement for priests to marry only within the tribe of Levi had been dropped several centuries earlier. Unfortunately, however, once again, I can't quote a source for that.
Yeah, Luke does say they go to Nazareth right after Jerusalem.
Lest you think I'm playing with translations, the Greek word "ὡς" translated as "when" is meant to tie to clauses together. In other contexts in can be translated as "like" or "as". In other words it would be deceptive to say "When I completed my business in London I returned to Luton" if there were a multi-month (or possibly multi-year) interval between those two events when you were avoiding a squad of government assassins. The nativity of Jesus is one of those stories where everyone just "knows" how it's supposed to go so they don't bother actually reading it.
For example, Luke also makes the point that the sacrifice offered at the Temple following the birth of Jesus was two doves. The sacrifice for the birth of a son was supposed to be a year old lamb. Two doves are an acceptable substitute for those too poor to afford a lamb, which would be totally consistent with everything else Luke has told us about Joseph and Mary but is inconsistent with Matthew's claim that the couple had been given some very expensive luxury goods by eastern mystics.
In other words the desire to harmonize between the two different nativities often serves to obscure what the authors are trying to actually tell us.
I'm not sure that's a real thing. With their obsession with the Roman Republic/Imperium 19th century scholars would have been aware of the existence of the Censors, public officials who conducted the census (and banned smut, hence the English word "censorship"). In the days of the Republic the census served an even more important purpose since freeborn males of a certain age were expected to serve in Rome's armies and the state needed to know how many men were available in any given region. This function became less important after the reforms of Marius and the transition to a professional military. Heck, the Marian reforms were in many ways based on census counts.
Actually, there was no such biblical requirement except for the high priest, who was obliged to marry a Levite virgin (Levitcus 21:14). In his case I think it was all about securing the high priestly bloodline. We know that Aaron himself married a Judahite woman--one of Jesus' collateral ancestors in fact, Elisheba, sister of Nahshon (Exodus 6:23), though this took place before the aforementioned ruling. I wouldn't swear to it that the rules and regs in this regard hadn't multiplied by the time of Jesus, however--plenty of others had.
This is another place where we have to be really careful about making assumptions based on modern ideas. In a modern biography we would fault somebody for skipping over such a dramatic and life-changing episode, and the whole "after... they returned" construction would therefore stink of subterfuge. I really hesitate to say the same about ancient writings, which are far less anal about timing and getting everything all scheduled out and chronological. We would call it playing fast and loose with the events; they would very likely squint at us and wonder what all the fussing was about, particularly if/because they knew that another account existed, and we could get the episode there if we were so determined to have it, in spite of authorial intention.
It's highly unlikely the Magi had shown up by the time Jesus was 40 days old and being presented at the temple.
But Luke has Mary and Joseph at the temple with a six-week-old baby, whereas the word Matthew uses for the child seen by the Magi implies an older child. IOW the visit of the Magi significantly post-dates the presentation in the temple. [Cross-posted with Lamb Chopped] I too am not a Greek scholar. My source was Tom Wright’s Who was Jesus - cited more fully here along with a wider discussion by Ian Paul.
An outrage not mentioned by Josephus
And to take it a bit further, living at a distance would make it impossible for Joseph to be the father of the child. It would have been pretty obvious had he dashed off the Nazareth for the weekend.
But neither of these interpretations are acceptable to today's fundamentalist interpreters. They insist on the premises that:
Hence the insistence on ever more strained harmonizations between the two accounts. For example:
Luke says the Holy Family's peregrinations were Nazareth-Bethlethem-Jerusalem-Nazareth. Matthew says it was Bethlehem-Egypt-Nazareth. @Lamb Chopped says it was Nazareth to Bethlehem to Jerusalem, then back to Bethlehem to make that meeting with the Magi the Holy Family knew about (somehow) then Egypt and the Nazareth again. This is not apparent from either of the texts available and only emerges if you're ironbound to the premises above (i.e. both accounts are inerrant and non-contradictory).
I would. Josephus loved loved LOVED detailing the atrocities of Herod the Great in as lurid a fashion as possible. We know of the other atrocities you mention primarily from Josephus. If he's going to detail the punishment of the eagle-stealers (Google it), who were also commoners, I see no reason why he would exclude a slaughter of small children. This is first century Judea we're talking about. That's something that would be expected of the Assyrians seven centuries earlier but would be very out of place by the first century CE. It would have been noticed.
Not necessarily. It's a fairly easy dividing line. By two years old almost every child capable of walking is doing so. It's a simple standard to use without having to expect that your political murder squads are also experts in child development. You don't want your two year old future deposer to escape your assassination squad because they thought he looked more like he was 27 months old.
You appear to find some contradiction between the idea that the Magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem when he was two or under, and the fact that his parents took him to the temple at age 40 days in accordance with Jewish custom and the Law of Moses.
What is the problem with both these things being true?
Seriously. If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as both accounts agree, then why is it so surprising that he gets taken to the temple 40 days later? Common sense would have the family still resident in Bethlehem at that point--it's no easy thing to travel anywhere with a newborn and with a woman still experiencing postpartum pain, swelling and bleeding. Jerusalem is only a couple of miles or so up the road if they stay put. Given Mary's physical state plus the religious requirements coming up so soon after birth, and it's an easy decision. Stay in Bethlehem for at least six weeks.
As for the Magi, you're the one who cast doubt on the 40 day temple visit because you somehow got the Magi arriving on the scene way too early. I don't see anyone else here who takes the position that they arrived when Jesus was a newborn. What have the two events got to do with each other at all?
As for Josephus and Herod's massacre--this is going to be a waste of time, because it's just trading assertions, but whatever. My understanding of the ancient world in this time and place is that children were just. not. that. important in the grand scheme of things, especially when they were ordinary village children of no particular wealth or family. What are we talking here, the death of a couple dozen babies tops? And that may be pushing it. There is no social media, there are no broadcasts, and the people affected are mainly shepherds and farmers and tradesmen. Horrible things happened to children all over the Roman empire and not much notice was taken. Exposure, abandonment, enslavement... It makes sense for Josephus and other historians to care about Herod's atrocities with regards to the rich, famous, and well-connected. They are also far more likely to hear about those stories in the first place.
You are arguing from silence. Do you not realize how weak an argument that is? "Josephus doesn't record it, so it clearly didn't happen."
Of course Josephus details the eagle thing. (Yes, I had heard of it before, thank you.) Josephus is interested in Jewish politics and particularly in conflicts with the Romans. Acts of religious heroism would be right up his alley. This incident was highly public and fits his interests. No surprises there. Why do you bring it up--because you think I was arguing that Josephus would never ever mention a commoner? Nothing of the sort.
And I don't understand this. You say:
Are you saying that the soldiers went in and killed every child who couldn't walk--which would mean missing out most children between one and two years of age, which is contrary to their instructions. Or do you mean that they killed every child who could walk--in which case they will catch the 1 year olds and up, but miss out on the infants who were supposed to be included? Not to mention the fact that it can be difficult to tell the difference between a two year old and a three year old unless you spend a lot of time with the nursery set, which I doubt most soldiers did. What was the point of bringing up walking at all?
I am very much confused.
Matthew does not say that the Magi visited Jesus as a neonate. In fact, the story and the language imply that Jesus could not have been that young.
Luke emphasises that the Jewish Law was followed concerning rites after childbirth.
Luke's story of presentation at the Temple means that the Holy Family stayed in Bethlehem for over a month after Jesus was born. Given the geography, travelling between Bethlehem and Jerusalem makes sense.
The key here is Luke 2:39:
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. [NIV]
If Luke here really means that they went from Jerusalem back to Nazareth then that conflicts with Matthew's account of the Magi visiting the infant in Bethlehem. Conversely, if Luke is simply saying that J & M followed the Law, whilst still residing in Bethlehem, then returned to Nazareth, there is no conflict.
This is where my ignorance of Greek becomes a problem for me.
I don't think you're playing with the translations. And thank you for the Greek:
"ὡς"
"when" or "like" or "as".
Hmmm... so after the Temple, they went back to Nazareth. I think insisting that Luke means they definitely weren't in Bethlehem after this point before returning to Nazareth (I.e. they weren't in Bethlehem when Matthew says they were) is making that one word do a lot of work. However, that is a better argument than implying that Matthew puts the Magi before the Temple as that's not what Matthew says.
AFZ
I agree with @Crœsos on this point, and I think it's an important one. In recent years I've come to see a lot more emphasis and editorial choice in the Gospel narratives to highlight key theological points beloved of each author.
By default, I still tend to take the narratives at face value and to be honest, find the apparent discrepancies about the holy familiy's itinerary, etc. just sort of fade into comfortable cognitive dissonance for me.
I find some of the explanations generally given for this sort of thing contrived to say the least (I recall one preacher trying to harmonise the resurrection appearances of Christ by claiming Thomas was in the toilet when Jesus appeared to the other eleven).
In the same way, I find some of the objections to the apparent discrepancies generally put forward equally contrived. The elaborate speculation they involve somehow seems to be as fundamentalist as the theories they oppose.
It's fun and sometimes instructive to try and thrash these things out, and I do believe they are based on historical substance, with a special preference for Luke in this respect, but it would indeed be a shame if any attempt to stitch the Gospels into one two-dimensional, seamless, factually accurate picture (presumably on the debatable grounds that they could not otherwise be "true") blinded us readers to a third dimension, that of the theological message of the evangelists.