Given that it seems to be pretty widely acknowledged that the Gospels are not written like histories of the time and that the Gospel writers do not write like historians of the time, that deafening silence just might have to do with with questions about the relevance of of your request for examples from other ancient historians. (Though in my case, I’ll readily admit has more to do with lack of familiarity with ancient sources to start with.)
What fascinates me is that Luke does somewhat adhere to the dating conventions used by contemporary historians, at least in the early bits of his narrative. For example, chapter 3 starts out"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar — when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene — during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, . . . " That's pretty much exactly the kind of dating ancient historians used; what year of the reign of the current monarch plus a few other leaders or notable figures named to bracket the date more closely. His vagueness at the beginning of chapter 1 where he doesn't specify the year of Herod's reign is probably an indicator that he simply didn't know the exact date. That makes sense, as the events surrounding the Nativity were, by definition, the furthest away in time of the things described by the Luke and Matthew. People who were adult witnesses at the time must have been getting scarce.
I have sometimes thought that Mary went to visit her cousin simply because Elizabeth was pregnant and needed family help. The trip may have been planned ever since it became known that Elizabeth was pregnant and her husband was mute.
This isn't something that bothers me that much but I'm with @alienfromzog, @Lamb Chopped and @BroJames on this. I am getting the impression that @Crœsos is (desperately?) trying to find ways to be let off taking the text seriously.
The only thing I'd add is that I seem to remember being told sometime in the past that it wasn't a Roman requirement that the holy family trek down to Bethlehem to get counted. That was either a Jewish gloss on the census, or Joseph's wanting to make sure he got them recorded there, rather than up in Galilee.
Something none of us know was whether Joseph himself had any living family connection with Bethlehem or whether it was connected with family pride that though he might be just a carpenter, he was descended from kings, rather as John Durbeyfield gets inspired by being told he's descended from the d'Urbervilles.
As scripture is silent, however intriguing one may - or may not - find that question there is no way of finding out. So there is no point in wasting mental, physical or spiritual energy speculating about it. Doing so is a distraction from walking the steep and rugged pathway.
Well done with, all the links.
Can I note that threads like these need extra effort to remain excellent to one another. There's a reason the general inerrancy/etc is a no-no.
Perhaps consider focusing on the history of harmonisation, treat it as a game,or otherwise making it less about each others view.
This isn't something that bothers me that much but I'm with @alienfromzog, @Lamb Chopped and @BroJames on this. I am getting the impression that @Crœsos is (desperately?) trying to find ways to be let off taking the text seriously.
I'd argue I'm the only one here taking it seriously by reading it as written, without inserting extra-textual explanations for why Luke doesn't mean what he writes. Or is this one of those Salena Zito things where we're supposed to take Luke seriously but not literally?
The only thing I'd add is that I seem to remember being told sometime in the past that it wasn't a Roman requirement that the holy family trek down to Bethlehem to get counted. That was either a Jewish gloss on the census, or Joseph's wanting to make sure he got them recorded there, rather than up in Galilee.
Indeed. Roman censuses didn't work like that. The Romans wanted to know where you lived now, not where your ancestors lived centuries ago. The whole purpose of the census was to determine the current location of manpower and resources within a province. This is, of course, extra-textual data that doesn't affect Luke being internally consistent.
Another (also extra-textual) factor to take into account is that Nazareth was in Galilee, a Roman client state under the rule of Herod Antipas, not a territory directly controlled by Rome itself, which falls under the same question of Romans conducting a census in territory they didn't directly control.
Something none of us know was whether Joseph himself had any living family connection with Bethlehem or whether it was connected with family pride that though he might be just a carpenter, he was descended from kings, rather as John Durbeyfield gets inspired by being told he's descended from the d'Urbervilles.
As scripture is silent, however intriguing one may - or may not - find that question there is no way of finding out. So there is no point in wasting mental, physical or spiritual energy speculating about it. Doing so is a distraction from walking the steep and rugged pathway.
I think the silence of Luke on this question can be interpreted as saying that it is irrelevant to the story he was telling.
I'd argue I'm the only one here taking it seriously by reading it as written, without inserting extra-textual explanations for why Luke doesn't mean what he writes. Or is this one of those Salena Zito things where we're supposed to take Luke seriously but not literally?
But isn't that exactly the way histories should be treated? I treat Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" seriously, but I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to take everything she writes literally. Extra-textual information informs the writing.
I'd argue I'm the only one here taking it seriously by reading it as written, without inserting extra-textual explanations for why Luke doesn't mean what he writes. Or is this one of those Salena Zito things where we're supposed to take Luke seriously but not literally?
But isn't that exactly the way histories should be treated? I treat Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" seriously, but I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to take everything she writes literally. Extra-textual information informs the writing.
Depends what you mean by a "history". I'd tend to take a modern history book as intended to be literal. Whether this applies to the Gospel accounts is a different question.
If it doesn't, then we needn't expect them to harmonise, but you can't have it both ways. If they contain discrepancies, then one or other other is factually wrong about some point or other. That's the thing about the "you expect discrepancies in eye-witness accounts - that's what marks them out as genuine eye-witness accounts" argument - yes, it may do, but the point is you cannot say "we know they're eye-witness accounts because they're not 100% reliable" and at the same time say "they're 100% reliable because they're eye-witness accounts!"
In Luke 2:3, we are told "And everyone went to their own town to register." Joseph apparently identified Bethlehem as his own town. Perhaps he had not lived long in Nazareth.
Indeed. And if he was just in Nazareth because there was work there, that would make sense, once he had returned to Bethlehem, of his staying there longer after the birth, and not going straight back to Nazareth.
It wouldn't be all that surprising to find a young couple with recent ties to two locations, especially since that was a culture where it was common to marry one's cousin (first, second, whatever). It would be entirely credible for Joseph to start looking for a bride among his cousins and find one on the branch of the family that had moved to Nazareth a generation or so earlier. That would give the young couple relatives and potential help in both locations.
No one ever seems to comment on how long Anne had to wait to meet her grandson.
It seems clear that they stayed in Bethlehem until the time of Mary's purification; I see no good evidence that they stayed longer. People point to Herod's instruction to his men to kill all the baby boys below the age of two, but perhaps he is simply trying to make sure of killing Jesus; the soldiers sent to do the job may have all been bachelors living in barracks without wives or children of their own, and thus poor at estimating a boy's age.
I also think it would not take years to cross the distance from (say) Iraq to Palestine. As I see it, they stayed in Bethlehem for forty days, visited Jerusalem (country folk eager to see the big city), and soon after that, the Magi showed up, after which Joseph gets his second dreams and they depart abruptly for Egypt.
It wouldn't be all that surprising to find a young couple with recent ties to two locations, especially since that was a culture where it was common to marry one's cousin (first, second, whatever). It would be entirely credible for Joseph to start looking for a bride among his cousins and find one on the branch of the family that had moved to Nazareth a generation or so earlier. That would give the young couple relatives and potential help in both locations.
Not even young couples. I have two different answers to the question “Where are you from?”—one answer is where I’ve lived for the last 38 years, the other answer is the town I grew up in (and where my family has been for generations). The latter is what I consider the “correct” answer, even though I haven’t really lived there since I left for college.
Which answer I give depends on the context of the conversation and what I think the person I’m talking to is really asking, though sometimes the answer may include both: “Well, I’ve lived in X for 30-plus years, but I’m from Y.”
I have trouble imagining that the languages spoken in NT weren’t capable of the same sorts of nuances and shades of meaning that modern (Southern) American English is.
I doubt anyone reading the text without extra-textual knowledge of the relative dates of Herod and Quirinus would think that ten years have passed between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus.
Incidentally it seems that the reading that this was the census before Quirinus was governor of Syria is doubtful on the grounds that there is no record of such a census, but is there any record of a second census while Quirinus was governor of Syria?
(The NRSV just translates it as the "first registration and was taken while Quirinus was etc".)
If you remove Luke 2:2 from the Text, then the accounts of Luke and Matthew harmonise easily. Matthew 2: 1-18 sits between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39 and Matthew 2:23 is effectively parallel to Luke 2:39. This reading makes a lot of sense as Luke begins the whole section on John's conception by placing all the events in the time of Herod.
Hence it is reasonable to enquire exactly what Luke might mean or whether we know about Quirinius' governorship(s?) There are lots of theories and no clear evidence (AFAIK) to support any of them. For me, if there's ambiguity, I am happy to have an understanding in my head that draws them together without being totally wedded to it and to trust Luke. I suspect whatever he meant by 2:2 made sense to his original readers even if it isn't clear to us.
Of course, that does beg other questions. As was mentioned above the Roman census of the 'whole world' and why Joseph would travel to Bethlehem - this requirement of returning to one's own town is odd...
It wouldn't be all that surprising to find a young couple with recent ties to two locations, especially since that was a culture where it was common to marry one's cousin (first, second, whatever). It would be entirely credible for Joseph to start looking for a bride among his cousins and find one on the branch of the family that had moved to Nazareth a generation or so earlier. That would give the young couple relatives and potential help in both locations.
Not even young couples. I have two different answers to the question “Where are you from?”—one answer is where I’ve lived for the last 38 years, the other answer is the town I grew up in (and where my family has been for generations). The latter is what I consider the “correct” answer, even though I haven’t really lived there since I left for college.
Which answer I give depends on the context of the conversation and what I think the person I’m talking to is really asking, though sometimes the answer may include both: “Well, I’ve lived in X for 30-plus years, but I’m from Y.”
I have trouble imagining that the languages spoken in NT weren’t capable of the same sorts of nuances and shades of meaning that modern (Southern) American English is.
We have a bit of this in Luke's account. Luke refers to both Nazareth and Bethlehem as Joseph and Mary's home town (πόλιν ἑαυτῶν / ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν ; literally "the town of them"). In the case of Bethlehem he clarifies that this is because of an ancestral connection of Joseph's. He doesn't bother with an explanation in the case of Nazareth, which implies that he means the term in its more common, vernacular sense of the place where someone is living at that moment. Once again, authors explain things they think require explanation (i.e. why would Bethlehem be considered Joseph and Mary's home town?) and don't bother to explain things they think require no explanation (i.e. why would Nazareth be considered Joseph and Mary's home town?).
Incidentally it seems that the reading that this was the census before Quirinus was governor of Syria is doubtful on the grounds that there is no record of such a census, but is there any record of a second census while Quirinus was governor of Syria?
(The NRSV just translates it as the "first registration and was taken while Quirinus was etc".)
I guess answering this question depends on whether you read the reference to Quirinius as "this was the first census of Judea, the one that happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria" or as "this was the first census to take place during Quirinius' governorship of Syria". I favor the first interpretation because it matches up with the common way ancient historians dated events and is consistent with Judea newly coming under direct Roman rule.
If you remove Luke 2:2 from the Text, then the accounts of Luke and Matthew harmonise easily. Matthew 2: 1-18 sits between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39 and Matthew 2:23 is effectively parallel to Luke 2:39. This reading makes a lot of sense as Luke begins the whole section on John's conception by placing all the events in the time of Herod.
Not really. As I noted earlier, there is almost no overlap between the Luke and Matthew birth narratives. To me this is fascinating because Matthew and Luke parallel each other closely in a lot of other instances but in the case of the Nativity it seems like they're working from completely different scripts.
Of course, that does beg other questions. As was mentioned above the Roman census of the 'whole world' and why Joseph would travel to Bethlehem - this requirement of returning to one's own town is odd...
My Tanzanian friend tells me this is routine in his country. That way the clan elders can determine who is an actual member of the extended family.
Of course, this may be a literary device to fulfill OT prophecies.
It wouldn't be all that surprising to find a young couple with recent ties to two locations, especially since that was a culture where it was common to marry one's cousin (first, second, whatever). It would be entirely credible for Joseph to start looking for a bride among his cousins and find one on the branch of the family that had moved to Nazareth a generation or so earlier. That would give the young couple relatives and potential help in both locations.
Not even young couples. I have two different answers to the question “Where are you from?”—one answer is where I’ve lived for the last 38 years, the other answer is the town I grew up in (and where my family has been for generations). The latter is what I consider the “correct” answer, even though I haven’t really lived there since I left for college.
Which answer I give depends on the context of the conversation and what I think the person I’m talking to is really asking, though sometimes the answer may include both: “Well, I’ve lived in X for 30-plus years, but I’m from Y.”
I have trouble imagining that the languages spoken in NT weren’t capable of the same sorts of nuances and shades of meaning that modern (Southern) American English is.
We have a bit of this in Luke's account. Luke refers to both Nazareth and Bethlehem as Joseph and Mary's home town (πόλιν ἑαυτῶν / ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν ; literally "the town of them"). In the case of Bethlehem he clarifies that this is because of an ancestral connection of Joseph's. He doesn't bother with an explanation in the case of Nazareth, which implies that he means the term in its more common, vernacular sense of the place where someone is living at that moment. Once again, authors explain things they think require explanation (i.e. why would Bethlehem be considered Joseph and Mary's home town?) and don't bother to explain things they think require no explanation (i.e. why would Nazareth be considered Joseph and Mary's home town?).
Incidentally it seems that the reading that this was the census before Quirinus was governor of Syria is doubtful on the grounds that there is no record of such a census, but is there any record of a second census while Quirinus was governor of Syria?
(The NRSV just translates it as the "first registration and was taken while Quirinus was etc".)
I guess answering this question depends on whether you read the reference to Quirinius as "this was the first census of Judea, the one that happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria" or as "this was the first census to take place during Quirinius' governorship of Syria". I favor the first interpretation because it matches up with the common way ancient historians dated events and is consistent with Judea newly coming under direct Roman rule.
If you remove Luke 2:2 from the Text, then the accounts of Luke and Matthew harmonise easily. Matthew 2: 1-18 sits between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39 and Matthew 2:23 is effectively parallel to Luke 2:39. This reading makes a lot of sense as Luke begins the whole section on John's conception by placing all the events in the time of Herod.
Not really. As I noted earlier, there is almost no overlap between the Luke and Matthew birth narratives. To me this is fascinating because Matthew and Luke parallel each other closely in a lot of other instances but in the case of the Nativity it seems like they're working from completely different scripts.
And I still find this statement very odd.
There is no overlap between Luke's Nativity and Matthew's except that 1. Jesus was born of Mary
2. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she became pregnant
3. Both state that Joseph was descended from David
4. Both hold that Mary conceived whilst still a virgin
5. Both state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
6. Both record that Jesus grew up in Nazareth
7. Both refer to the reign of Herod
8. Both describe the Christchild being named Jesus, before he was born.
But apart from that.
One focuses on Mary's experience whilst the other tells Joseph's story.
As I said, absent Luke 2:2, there is no contradiction, just very different emphases. I think the two dovetail very nicely, telling us different things. But maybe that's just me.
As I said, absent Luke 2:2, there is no contradiction, just very different emphases. I think the two dovetail very nicely, telling us different things.
I think it's true that Matthew doesn't say anything to dispel the impression that Mary and Joseph both lived in Bethlehem before Jesus was born. It's also true that Luke kind of implies that Mary and Joseph both lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born, although as noted Luke's statement that Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to be registered is odd if Joseph was permanently settled in Nazareth. In general, I think that when choosing between different readings of a text a reading that is consistent with the implied audience's understanding of how the world works is to preferred prima facie. I suppose if Luke believes that Joseph is from Bethlehem and hasn't yet intended to permanently settle in Nazareth yet that would fit the text and would explain why he's travelling back to Bethlehem. It doesn't really help with the dating problem though.
For what it's worth, it's just as odd (and no more odd) that Mary should have relatives living over 100 miles away in the hill country of Judea than that Mary and Joseph should have these different geographical ties. At some point somebody in the family must have picked up and moved, very likely at the time of marriage. Why not Joseph, or his father, etc.? I just don't see this as a huge problem, especially since a builder/carpenter like Joseph would be even more likely to pick up and move to a site close to one of Herod's major building projects.
Where does it say that the Magi were in Bethlehem?
Matthew 2
The Magi Visit the Messiah
1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem
2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.
5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.
8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
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.
10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.
11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
Not really. As I noted earlier, there is almost no overlap between the Luke and Matthew birth narratives. To me this is fascinating because Matthew and Luke parallel each other closely in a lot of other instances but in the case of the Nativity it seems like they're working from completely different scripts.
And I still find this statement very odd.
There is no overlap between Luke's Nativity and Matthew's except that 1. Jesus was born of Mary
2. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she became pregnant
3. Both state that Joseph was descended from David
4. Both hold that Mary conceived whilst still a virgin
5. Both state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
6. Both record that Jesus grew up in Nazareth
7. Both refer to the reign of Herod
8. Both describe the Christchild being named Jesus, before he was born.
But apart from that.
Let me illustrate by reproducing Luke's Nativity narrative in a form that omits everything not also found in Matthew.
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there [ ed. - Bethlehem ], the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.
When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”
Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss[d] your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”
The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of 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. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.
From my perspective, omitting about 90% of the narrative details (the census, the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, visitation of the shepherds, the heavenly host, visiting the Jerusalem temple and associated prophecies) is what I mean when I say there is almost no overlap between the two narratives.
Here's Matthew's Nativity similarly treated.
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
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. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”
So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
Same issue. Missing are the Magi/wise men/kings, the Christmas star, intrigues with Herod, the flight to Egypt, numerous prophetic dreams, etc. In other words, most of the details people think of when recounting the Nativity.
For what it's worth, it's just as odd (and no more odd) that Mary should have relatives living over 100 miles away in the hill country of Judea than that Mary and Joseph should have these different geographical ties. At some point somebody in the family must have picked up and moved, very likely at the time of marriage. Why not Joseph, or his father, etc.? I just don't see this as a huge problem, especially since a builder/carpenter like Joseph would be even more likely to pick up and move to a site close to one of Herod's major building projects.
Umm. I think I have mentioned this before. Nazareth is close to Caesarea. Joseph and other craftsmen living in Nazareth likely worked in Caesarea, Caesara was a Roman town. The Roman governor lived there
Umm. I think I have mentioned this before. Nazareth is close to Caesarea. Joseph and other craftsmen living in Nazareth likely worked in Caesarea, Caesara was a Roman town. The Roman governor lived there
Caesarea was over 50 km away from Nazareth; you may be thinking of Sepphoris (minus Roman governor). At the time of Jesus, Nazareth and Sepphoris were not under direct Roman rule.
I can understand Matthew not knowing about the shepherds but I don't understand why the 'Historian' Luke didn't know about the wise men
That he didn’t mention them doesn’t mean he didn’t know about them.
Based on what he wrote in Luke 1( 1-4) I reckon he would certainly have mentioned them
I suspect that if Luke had included everything he knew about the life of Jesus, his Gospel would have been significantly longer, as suggested at the end of John’s Gospel. Luke included in his “orderly account” the parts he thought conveyed the message he wanted to convey.
To be clear, I’m not asserting that Luke did know about the magi; I’m just saying that his not mentioning them doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t know about them.
Comments
What fascinates me is that Luke does somewhat adhere to the dating conventions used by contemporary historians, at least in the early bits of his narrative. For example, chapter 3 starts out "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar — when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene — during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, . . . " That's pretty much exactly the kind of dating ancient historians used; what year of the reign of the current monarch plus a few other leaders or notable figures named to bracket the date more closely. His vagueness at the beginning of chapter 1 where he doesn't specify the year of Herod's reign is probably an indicator that he simply didn't know the exact date. That makes sense, as the events surrounding the Nativity were, by definition, the furthest away in time of the things described by the Luke and Matthew. People who were adult witnesses at the time must have been getting scarce.
The only thing I'd add is that I seem to remember being told sometime in the past that it wasn't a Roman requirement that the holy family trek down to Bethlehem to get counted. That was either a Jewish gloss on the census, or Joseph's wanting to make sure he got them recorded there, rather than up in Galilee.
Something none of us know was whether Joseph himself had any living family connection with Bethlehem or whether it was connected with family pride that though he might be just a carpenter, he was descended from kings, rather as John Durbeyfield gets inspired by being told he's descended from the d'Urbervilles.
As scripture is silent, however intriguing one may - or may not - find that question there is no way of finding out. So there is no point in wasting mental, physical or spiritual energy speculating about it. Doing so is a distraction from walking the steep and rugged pathway.
Can I note that threads like these need extra effort to remain excellent to one another. There's a reason the general inerrancy/etc is a no-no.
Perhaps consider focusing on the history of harmonisation, treat it as a game,or otherwise making it less about each others view.
Jay-emm keryg host
I'd argue I'm the only one here taking it seriously by reading it as written, without inserting extra-textual explanations for why Luke doesn't mean what he writes. Or is this one of those Salena Zito things where we're supposed to take Luke seriously but not literally?
Indeed. Roman censuses didn't work like that. The Romans wanted to know where you lived now, not where your ancestors lived centuries ago. The whole purpose of the census was to determine the current location of manpower and resources within a province. This is, of course, extra-textual data that doesn't affect Luke being internally consistent.
Another (also extra-textual) factor to take into account is that Nazareth was in Galilee, a Roman client state under the rule of Herod Antipas, not a territory directly controlled by Rome itself, which falls under the same question of Romans conducting a census in territory they didn't directly control.
I think the silence of Luke on this question can be interpreted as saying that it is irrelevant to the story he was telling.
Depends what you mean by a "history". I'd tend to take a modern history book as intended to be literal. Whether this applies to the Gospel accounts is a different question.
If it doesn't, then we needn't expect them to harmonise, but you can't have it both ways. If they contain discrepancies, then one or other other is factually wrong about some point or other. That's the thing about the "you expect discrepancies in eye-witness accounts - that's what marks them out as genuine eye-witness accounts" argument - yes, it may do, but the point is you cannot say "we know they're eye-witness accounts because they're not 100% reliable" and at the same time say "they're 100% reliable because they're eye-witness accounts!"
It seems clear that they stayed in Bethlehem until the time of Mary's purification; I see no good evidence that they stayed longer. People point to Herod's instruction to his men to kill all the baby boys below the age of two, but perhaps he is simply trying to make sure of killing Jesus; the soldiers sent to do the job may have all been bachelors living in barracks without wives or children of their own, and thus poor at estimating a boy's age.
I also think it would not take years to cross the distance from (say) Iraq to Palestine. As I see it, they stayed in Bethlehem for forty days, visited Jerusalem (country folk eager to see the big city), and soon after that, the Magi showed up, after which Joseph gets his second dreams and they depart abruptly for Egypt.
Which answer I give depends on the context of the conversation and what I think the person I’m talking to is really asking, though sometimes the answer may include both: “Well, I’ve lived in X for 30-plus years, but I’m from Y.”
I have trouble imagining that the languages spoken in NT weren’t capable of the same sorts of nuances and shades of meaning that modern (Southern) American English is.
Incidentally it seems that the reading that this was the census before Quirinus was governor of Syria is doubtful on the grounds that there is no record of such a census, but is there any record of a second census while Quirinus was governor of Syria?
(The NRSV just translates it as the "first registration and was taken while Quirinus was etc".)
If you remove Luke 2:2 from the Text, then the accounts of Luke and Matthew harmonise easily. Matthew 2: 1-18 sits between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39 and Matthew 2:23 is effectively parallel to Luke 2:39. This reading makes a lot of sense as Luke begins the whole section on John's conception by placing all the events in the time of Herod.
Hence it is reasonable to enquire exactly what Luke might mean or whether we know about Quirinius' governorship(s?) There are lots of theories and no clear evidence (AFAIK) to support any of them. For me, if there's ambiguity, I am happy to have an understanding in my head that draws them together without being totally wedded to it and to trust Luke. I suspect whatever he meant by 2:2 made sense to his original readers even if it isn't clear to us.
Of course, that does beg other questions. As was mentioned above the Roman census of the 'whole world' and why Joseph would travel to Bethlehem - this requirement of returning to one's own town is odd...
Some basic background on Herod's reign as a client-state ruler in the Roman empire:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herod-king-of-Judaea
AFZ
We have a bit of this in Luke's account. Luke refers to both Nazareth and Bethlehem as Joseph and Mary's home town (πόλιν ἑαυτῶν / ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν ; literally "the town of them"). In the case of Bethlehem he clarifies that this is because of an ancestral connection of Joseph's. He doesn't bother with an explanation in the case of Nazareth, which implies that he means the term in its more common, vernacular sense of the place where someone is living at that moment. Once again, authors explain things they think require explanation (i.e. why would Bethlehem be considered Joseph and Mary's home town?) and don't bother to explain things they think require no explanation (i.e. why would Nazareth be considered Joseph and Mary's home town?).
I guess answering this question depends on whether you read the reference to Quirinius as "this was the first census of Judea, the one that happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria" or as "this was the first census to take place during Quirinius' governorship of Syria". I favor the first interpretation because it matches up with the common way ancient historians dated events and is consistent with Judea newly coming under direct Roman rule.
Not really. As I noted earlier, there is almost no overlap between the Luke and Matthew birth narratives. To me this is fascinating because Matthew and Luke parallel each other closely in a lot of other instances but in the case of the Nativity it seems like they're working from completely different scripts.
My Tanzanian friend tells me this is routine in his country. That way the clan elders can determine who is an actual member of the extended family.
Of course, this may be a literary device to fulfill OT prophecies.
And I still find this statement very odd.
There is no overlap between Luke's Nativity and Matthew's except that
1. Jesus was born of Mary
2. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she became pregnant
3. Both state that Joseph was descended from David
4. Both hold that Mary conceived whilst still a virgin
5. Both state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
6. Both record that Jesus grew up in Nazareth
7. Both refer to the reign of Herod
8. Both describe the Christchild being named Jesus, before he was born.
But apart from that.
One focuses on Mary's experience whilst the other tells Joseph's story.
As I said, absent Luke 2:2, there is no contradiction, just very different emphases. I think the two dovetail very nicely, telling us different things. But maybe that's just me.
AFZ
Matthew 2
The Magi Visit the Messiah
1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem
2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.
5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.
8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
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.
10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.
11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
Let me illustrate by reproducing Luke's Nativity narrative in a form that omits everything not also found in Matthew.
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there [ ed. - Bethlehem ], the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.
When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”
Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss[d] your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”
The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of 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. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.
From my perspective, omitting about 90% of the narrative details (the census, the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, visitation of the shepherds, the heavenly host, visiting the Jerusalem temple and associated prophecies) is what I mean when I say there is almost no overlap between the two narratives.
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
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. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”
So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
Same issue. Missing are the Magi/wise men/kings, the Christmas star, intrigues with Herod, the flight to Egypt, numerous prophetic dreams, etc. In other words, most of the details people think of when recounting the Nativity.
Umm. I think I have mentioned this before. Nazareth is close to Caesarea. Joseph and other craftsmen living in Nazareth likely worked in Caesarea, Caesara was a Roman town. The Roman governor lived there
Caesarea was over 50 km away from Nazareth; you may be thinking of Sepphoris (minus Roman governor). At the time of Jesus, Nazareth and Sepphoris were not under direct Roman rule.
To be clear, I’m not asserting that Luke did know about the magi; I’m just saying that his not mentioning them doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t know about them.