Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[Enlil-An]

It recently came to my attention that the birth narratives of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are irreconcilably contradictary. According to Matthew, the Savior and his parents are from Bethlehem, stay there for two years after Jesus' birth, fly to Egypt to escape King Herod, and arrive at Nazareth for the first time once Herod is dead. In Luke, Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth, travel to Bethlehem for the census, stay there only a month during her purification according to Levitical law, and then return back home to Nazareth. There is no flight to Egypt, no wise men following a star, no death decree by Herod.

After reading these narratives closely, it becomes obvious that Matthew and Luke are telling two totally different, contradicting stories. Both of them can't be true. The prophet, Nephi, prophesied that Jesus' mother would be from Nazareth but only says that Jesus would be born in "the land of Jerusalem". There are no other places in the standard works that specify where Jesus was born or how he got there.

My question is, has anyone else here noticed this and how do we reconcile it with the Church's position that the Bible is the word of God (originally written by inspired men) and that the only errors in it are mistranlations and interpolations here and there?

[Just_A_Guy]

I see little here that is actually mutually exclusive, and no reason the accounts could not both be "true" (if incomplete).

Matthew is writing to Jews, and trying to convince his Jewish readers that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. The tale of Herod is crucial to this theme--Jesus' Egyptian background and the slaughter of the children at Rama (about ten miles from Bethlehem) were, per Matthew's interpretation, foretold. (By the way, Matthew does not say that either Mary or Joseph were natives of Bethlehem. It just says Jesus was born there.) Similarly, the story of the wise men reinforces Jesus' status as king to a naturally skeptical Jewish readership.

Luke is writing to Gentiles. The Gentiles didn't have unfulfilled prophecies about a king of kings, so Luke didn't need to waste time trying to explain how Jesus fit into that mold.

[Enlil-An]

While Matthew might not specifically say that Mary and Joseph are from Bethlehem, a close reading of the story shows that this is so. There's no mention of the census or any trip from Nazareth. After Jesus is born, they're still in Bethlehem two years later when the wise men find them and the only reason they leave is because Herod threatens Jesus' life. After Herod's death, they left Egypt, but Matthew makes it clear the only reason they didn't return to Bethlehem (home) was because Herod's son was ruler in Judea, so Joseph took his family and "he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth".

Luke's gospel says that Mary and Joseph travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, staid there a month (not two years) and then immediately returned to Nazareth after presenting the baby Jesus to the temple.

Herod's decree, the wisemen, the star, the flight to Egypt; are all from Matthew's gospel. These elements of the story do not appear in Luke's. Likewise, the census, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger story, the shepards; these all appear in Luke but not Matthew. The only things that both accounts agree on is the virgin birth and that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. Other than that, they are completely different stories.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Enlil-An

[Just_A_Guy]

Ah, I see your point re the end of Matthew 2 and "turning aside".

I'm still unconvinced that Matthew's account positively rules out Joseph's and/or Mary's origins as being Nazarene. All it really implies is that after returning from Egypt Joseph first thought to live somewhere in Judea. That doesn't mean Joseph and Mary were from there; it could just as easily mean that while in Egypt they determined that Jesus should be brought up in close proximity to Jerusalem.

That said, I'm not sure that the Church's official position is that the only factual errors in the Bible came through mistranslations. I'm very comfortable with the idea that the original authors of the Bible wrote the truth as they understood it, but that some portions of the Bible were written based on either misinterpretation of a revelation or else unreliable hearsay.

[Justice]

Enlil-An, I guess the important question is what's the take home lesson you're trying present us with?

[Enlil-An]

There are a lot of problems with Matthew's account. For one thing, the idea that Joseph would avoid Judea by turning aside into Galilee because the new ruler of Judea was Archelaus, a son of Herod is not historically viable because the ruler of Galilee at the time was Herod Antipus (another son of Herod).

Second, many of the prophecies Matthew quotes to support the authenticity of his story were never recognized as messianic prophecies, are often taken out of context, and are quoted from the Greek Septuigent (not from the original Hebrew) and don't mean what he says they mean when taken from the original Hebrew writings.

For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 to show that the virgin birth was predicted in scripture. The problem is that the scripture he quotes is the Greek translation which uses the word parthenos (an ambiguous Greek word meaning either "young girl" or "virgin"). The original Hebrew reading uses the word aalmah which simply means "young girl" (the Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah) and would not be construed by anyone reading Hebrew to mean that a baby would be born from a virgin.

Also, Matthew claims that it was "spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" when no such prophecy in ancient scripture exists. I'm sure that we could suppose (like the Bible Dictionary does) that this prophecy exists in one of the lost books of scripture but if the Jews of Matthew's day had a copy of this lost book then why do the Jews of John's gospel have such a problem with Jesus coming from Nazareth. In one case (John 7:52), when Nicodemus tries to stick up for Jesus, the Pharisees retort, "Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet."

I think if Matthew believed that Joseph and Mary originally came from Nazareth, the wording in his gospel would not be, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth" after returning to Israel from Egypt.

The historians' arguement is that the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth was always an embarassment to early followers of Jesus (who believed him to be the Messiah) because Jewish tradition held that the Messiah would come out of Bethlehem. So Matthew and Luke, determined to make Jesus the legitimite Messiah of the Jews, concocted their own accounts (or borrowed stories from two seperate oral traditions) of how Jesus was both from Bethlehem and Nazareth (John didn't care where Jesus was from and one of the major themes of his gospel is that if you're worried about where Jesus comes from, you won't be able to recognize him for what he really is) and came up with two totally different renditions.

It doesn't bother me so much to believe that the Bible was originally written (or copied) by unenlightened men who were writing several years after the original stories were written. But many of the Joseph Smith translations seem to be completely oblivious to these discrepencies and the fact that all the LDS student manuals and scripture commentaries I've ever read keep trying to force these two birth narratives to fit together bothers me because now I feel that nothing can be taken at face value anymore, even if it comes from a general authority...which is a disturbing thought...

Edited May 8, 2009 by Enlil-An

[Justice]

So, sum up in one sentence what you're trying to say you gather from all this. I'm a bit slower than most, and I still don't really know what you're trying to say.

[bytebear]

My question is, has anyone else here noticed this and how do we reconcile it with the Church's position that the Bible is the word of God (originally written by inspired men) and that the only errors in it are mistranlations and interpolations here and there?

How do you know that either book isn't mistranslated? But, from what I understand, the story of Christ's birth was transferred orally before it was ever written down. Clearly neither Luke nor Matthew were witnesses to the events, so they are telling the story from what they know. There are other apocrophal versions out there as well that were not canonized. Why do we accept the gospes as they exist? Because that is what we have. Joseph Smith asked God about apocraphal writings and the Lord told him they had some truth, but were not vital to the church. Similarly, I think small discrepancies in the Bible are also not all that important, and we may not ever know the complete story of Jesus' birth and upbringing until we meet him and find out first hand.

[Enlil-An]

So, sum up in one sentence what you're trying to say you gather from all this. I'm a bit slower than most, and I still don't really know what you're trying to say.

The last paragraph of my last post sums it up.

I think small discrepancies in the Bible are also not all that important, and we may not ever know the complete story of Jesus' birth and upbringing until we meet him and find out first hand.

Little discrepancies don't bother me but whole narratives that completely contradict eachother call the entire gospel(s) into question. There are other things in the gospels which can't be reconciled and the more one sees them the more one starts looking at the New Testament as a very flawed (human) book full of conflicting views of doctrine and history.

It would bother me less if LDS scholars would touch on these things instead of shying away from them. I just don't understand the Church's literalist approach to the Bible.

[bytebear]

The last paragraph of my last post sums it up.

Little discrepancies don't bother me but whole narratives that completely contradict eachother call the entire gospel(s) into question. There are other things in the gospels which can't be reconciled and the more one sees them the more one starts looking at the New Testament as a very flawed (human) book full of conflicting views of doctrine and history.

It would bother me less if LDS scholars would touch on these things instead of shying away from them. I just don't understand the Church's literalist approach to the Bible.

I don't understand your believe that the chruch has a literalist approach to the Bible. The chruch does not believe in inerrancy of the Bible as many other Christians do. They acknowledge that the authors may be mistaken or input opinion. For example, Paul says women shoud not speak in church. I believe that was his opinion, and not doctrine. Yet it is canonized. The church does not pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept or reject (although I believe the Lord told Smith that the Song of Solomon was not scripturally sound). Since there is no modern doctrine to clarify the events of Christ's birth, we can only come to our own conclusions. So, I have no problem with Luke recounting the story differently that Matthew, because they may have heard and/or understood the story differently.

What about the versions of the First Vision? Some people told the story slightly differently, and sometimes even contradictory, but it was to their understanding. I am sure if you told the story, you might tell it differently too, but that doesn't mean the story is false.

The bigger point is this: God does not give us all the answers. He presents truth through imperfect means, and it is up to us to decide through the witness of the Holy Ghost what truth is. You should not just read the Bible blindly and believe it. You should seek out truth, and confirm it through study and prayer.

[TeancumsSword]

I am more interested in your name then your question. Why have you given yourself the names of two Sumerian gods?

[Just_A_Guy]

Enlil-An, I agree with you that Matthew sometimes takes unwarranted liberties with his interpretations of Jewish prophecy.

That said, you seem to be (to use the classic legal terminology) "drawing inference upon inference".

Your apparent assumption that Jesus was not born at Bethlehem seems to be drawn from, among other things, the unwarranted assumptions that a) Matthew tells us why Joseph feared to subject himself to Archelaus' rule (in fact, he does not), and b) Matthew's "a city called Nazareth" verbiage means that Matthew is hinting that neither Joseph nor Mary had had any prior connection with that city (as opposed to, say, simply introducing a new and relatively obscure location into the narrative).

If you're using that assumption to assert that Jesus wasn't really born in Bethlehem, that Nephi's account is wrong, and/or that the GAs are suspect because they don't buy into the prior two assertions--that just isn't a bandwagon I'm willing to jump onto.

[rameumptom]

We believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. Since we are not sure which parts are the correct translation, the Lord allows us to believe it all, until he is ready to clarify it.

Bible Scholar, April Condick, suggests in her blog that the story of Jesus was put together by separate peoples years after Jesus' death. It is very possible that various stories came up as legends about Jesus. In fact, there are stories about his childhood that are still available for reading. Chances are, some were based on facts, while others were stories that were derived from various rumors or legends.

[Hemidakota]

It recently came to my attention that the birth narratives of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are irreconcilably contradictary. According to Matthew, the Savior and his parents are from Bethlehem, stay there for two years after Jesus' birth, fly to Egypt to escape King Herod, and arrive at Nazareth for the first time once Herod is dead. In Luke, Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth, travel to Bethlehem for the census, stay there only a month during her purification according to Levitical law, and then return back home to Nazareth. There is no flight to Egypt, no wise men following a star, no death decree by Herod.

After reading these narratives closely, it becomes obvious that Matthew and Luke are telling two totally different, contradicting stories. Both of them can't be true. The prophet, Nephi, prophesied that Jesus' mother would be from Nazareth but only says that Jesus would be born in "the land of Jerusalem". There are no other places in the standard works that specify where Jesus was born or how he got there.

My question is, has anyone else here noticed this and how do we reconcile it with the Church's position that the Bible is the word of God (originally written by inspired men) and that the only errors in it are mistranlations and interpolations here and there?

If you have a choice between the four apostles as to the details of the Savior's life, whom would you pick? Unfortunately for us, it was not the true followers of Christ that canonized the contents within since we are left with four accounts vice twelve.

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . since we are left with four accounts vice twelve.

Two accounts, actually. AFAIK, neither Mark nor Luke were apostles, technically speaking.

[Azriel]

Some thoughts:

Wise men did not warn Joseph to flee. An Angel of God did this after the wise men left.

So Joseph fled.

It never says Christ was 2 years old when the wise men arrived at His doorstep.

It says, that after Herod realized his wise men weren't going to return at all, it had been two years since Christ's birth.

Matthew does not say that Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem.

(He does say that Joseph wanted to put Mary away privily, and I would not be surprised if they left wherever they were FROM [where people knew her, and knew she was unwed/pregnant] and went to a town where people wouldn't know of her condition)

Luke states:

39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

But it doesn't say how long it took to do all the things, what all the things were, and where they were currently dwelling before their return.

[Hemidakota]

Two accounts, actually. AFAIK, neither Mark nor Luke were apostles, technically speaking.

Could you name the twelve?

[Just_A_Guy]

Wikipedia lists the names of the Twelve as recorded in each Gospel. In all of the lists, both Luke and (John-)Mark are absent.

[Hemidakota]

The gospel according to the wiki god. Go figure....

Yes, I am aware of the original twelve and that many things did transpired after the Savior left. Even Paul, there is no direct ordination of him being called to Apostleship. In fact, Luke was called many times as a physician by Paul. Seeing the two largest writings were completed by Luke [Acts], I have no doubt being a earlier scribe, he was in no doubt called. Some non-canonize work has indicated it since he was mentioned frequently.

On the level of likelihood, a number of careful scholars ask about the authorship of Luke: "If people were guessing, would they not be much more likely to come up with an apostle?" And on the restricted question of fact, Luke is the only author mentioned by the prominent church fathers and important hand-written copies of the Gospel in the early Christian centuries.

Paul profiles Luke. Besides giving Luke's general greetings in two letters (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11), the apostle was specific at the end of Colossians, describing him as "the beloved physician" (Col. 4:14). While Christian leaders regularly addressed their converts by "beloved," this term of endearment applied to a fellow laborer amounts to a designation of intense trust. Paul was most sensitive about who instructed the volatile branches, so here he really designated Luke as an apostolic associate whose spiritual—and historical—knowledge could be trusted. This relationship gives important color to Luke's preface; he could record what apostles knew because he was their intimate companion.

[Hemidakota]

In the case of Mark as with Luke, he was not also included in the original twelve choosen by the Savior. We do not know the precise relationship with the Savior, although Mark may have been among the larger circle of the Saviors' early followers. Tradition says that Mark was a missionary companion of Peter and that the Gospel of Mark represents in large measure Mark's account of Peter's recollections of the Lord and his ministry. That seems probable. It seems so if you would listen to not only Elder McConkie but those who subscribe to the learnings of scriptures.

Again, Luke is identified as the beloved physician and companion of Paul and was thus a bit more distant from the historical Jesus than was Mark. Mark, is considered by many to have been very careful, a historian who gathered all the information he could from "eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2) as he wrote his two-part work, Luke and Acts, which he dedicated to Theophilus, a person otherwise unknown to us.

According to many, Mark is traditionally said to have written his gospel in Rome during the time of Nero's persecution of the Church. Many of the slums of Rome had been burned, an act that is probably attributable to Nero, who wanted to make room for public buildings. Nero needed a scapegoat, however, and the Christians, who were not popular anyway because of their rather "narrow" religious views, were a group that could be easily blamed. Thus, the members of the Church among whom Mark worked and served were undergoing tremendous persecution, and suffering greatly. Apparently Mark longed to bring a message of hope to these people in the midst of their sufferings, as well as to explain through Jesus' own words and actions why people suffer in this world when they are doing what the Lord requires of them. Thus, the persecution that Peter and Mark faced in the Roman church determined to a large degree Mark's focus on the suffering in Jesus' life and the lives of his followers. Yet, I do believe Mark's writings are considered older than the other three accounts.

Now, it doesn't stop Mark in being called to Apostleship when there was need to fill the missing position. Whether it was so, we are left to the mercy of the scanty writings of what was considered canonized. Yet, the puzzling here, only a prophet and the twelve can write scriptures.

[NeuroTypical]

The prophet, Nephi, prophesied that Jesus' mother would be from Nazareth but only says that Jesus would be born in "the land of Jerusalem".

This one is easy. Bethlehem IS part of the land of Jerusalem. When King Solomon divided his kingdom, Jerusalem was the "administrative center" for Bethlehem. According to the Bible, the cities controlled the nearby lands. Thus we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron with its suburbs, fields, and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55–56). Tappuah is both a land and a city (Joshua 17:8, and Joshua 16:8–9.) Also, Jeremiah prophesyied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; compare 15:5–7).

Here's the modern borders of Jerusalem - please note that Bethlehem is part of it. Similar concept was going on 2 millenia ago.

2 Kings 14:20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem...

It would bother me less if LDS scholars would touch on these things instead of shying away from them.

Maybe you just don't know where to look...

LM

Edited May 8, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Enlil-An]

I don't understand your believe that the chruch has a literalist approach to the Bible.

The Articles of Faith state that we believe the Bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly". The Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke aren't mistranslations. The entire narratives are completely different accounts. Church manuals and commentaries have always took these stories literally and I believe the General Authorities have too.

They acknowledge that the authors may be mistaken or input opinion. For example, Paul says women shoud not speak in church. I believe that was his opinion, and not doctrine.

If that's the case then it can't be scripture. And if Paul's opinions were wrong regarding women's role in the Church, could he have been wrong on other parts of doctrine as well?

But I think we can rest assured that Paul did not have such a demeaning view of women. One of the most notorious passages of Paul's opinion of women's role in the Church is 1 Timothy 2:11-15. But scholars today almost universally consider 1 Timothy to be a forgery written in Paul's name. The other passage is in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 where Paul supposedly says that women should not speak in church. 1 Corinthians is not disputed by scholars to have been written by anyone other than Paul but these verses are disputed for a number of could reasons. First, it contradicts what Paul says earlier in chapter 11 where he says that women can and do speak in church. Second, many of the oldest manuscripts historians have of 1 Corinthians contain those verses out of order or in different places in the chapter. Some texts even have those verses at the bottom of the chapter or out to the side in the margins as footnotes (written by scribes obviously influenced by 1 Timothy). These and a few other reasons are why most scholars refuse to believe Paul wrote those passages.

But the Lord, apparantly, didn't reveal this to Joseph Smith while he was tranlsating the Bible because instead of leaving these passages out, Joseph Smith simply retranslated them to read that women should not "rule" in the churches.

The bigger point is this: God does not give us all the answers. He presents truth through imperfect means, and it is up to us to decide through the witness of the Holy Ghost what truth is.

If the Holy Ghost doesn't reveal to a prophet like Joseph Smith the discrepancies and interpolations found in the scriptures, how are we to have any chance of discovering the truth of these Biblical passages? Certainly not without professional scholarship. But LDS scholars by and large have rarely address these issues it seems, let alone formed a scholarly hypothesis about them. We are forced to study the works of scholars outside of the Church who do not believe that the Bible is inspired but take an evolutionary view on the beliefs expressed in the scriptures. And with so many discoveries historians have made concerning the New Testament as well as of the Ancient Near East and its influence on the Old Testament, I think LDS scholars should start addressing these issues to help serious students of the Bible and the Church's interpretation of it.

[NeuroTypical]

LDS scholars by and large have rarely address these issues it seems, let alone formed a scholarly hypothesis about them. ... I think LDS scholars should start addressing these issues to help serious students of the Bible and the Church's interpretation of it.

Just out of curiosity, could you name a few people you consider to be LDS scholars?

LM

[Enlil-An]

I am more interested in your name then your question. Why have you given yourself the names of two Sumerian gods?

I've been studying the Ancient Near East lately as a hobby and I thought it would be a unique user name. Have you studied the cultures of ancient Mesopotamia?

Enlil-An, I agree with you that Matthew sometimes takes unwarranted liberties with his interpretations of Jewish prophecy.

That said, you seem to be (to use the classic legal terminology) "drawing inference upon inference".

On the contrary, it is those who try to reconcile Matthew's account with Lukes who are drawing upon inferences. Nowhere in Matthew's gospel does it say that Jesus' parents are from Nazareth. If we only had Matthew's gospel (like many early Christians in the 1st century), we would naturally assume that Jesus' family was from Bethlehem. It is Luke's gospel that says that Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth.

It's obvious that the Savior's parents in Matthew's gospel are from Bethlehem. It was their home. That's why they stayed there so long after Jesus' birth. That's why they were planning to return there after Herod's death. Luke's divine family are not from Bethlehem, that's why he uses the story of the census as a mechanism to get them there. That's why they stay there only a month before they return home.

If you're using that assumption to assert that Jesus wasn't really born in Bethlehem, that Nephi's account is wrong, and/or that the GAs are suspect because they don't buy into the prior two assertions--that just isn't a bandwagon I'm willing to jump onto.

Nephi isn't wrong at all. Nephi doesn't say what city the Savior was to be born in. That's the point in all the standard works of the Church, the only sources that say that Jesus was born at Bethlehem are Matthew and Luke and not only do they completely contradict each other about how he got from there to Nazareth, their accounts of why he was born at Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth are not credible historically.

Matthew says Joseph moved to Nazareth because he was afraid of Herod's son who became ruler in Judea which is not a valid excuse for him to "turn aside" into Galilee because one of Herod's other sons was also a ruler in Galilee. Luke says that Jesus' parents already came from Nazareth and had to travel to Bethlehem because of the census of Quirinius which is not a valid excuse for getting Jesus to Bethlehem because Roman census' didnt require people to register at the town of their ancestory (not to mention the fact that the census took place in 6 AD the same year that Herod Archelaus - the ruler of Judea Joseph was trying to avoid in Matthew - was banished and seven years after Joseph Smith said the Savior was born).

In other words, Matthew and Luke both try to explain how Jesus was born at Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. They both contradict each other and they both provide unhistorically credible reasons for how it happened. Since these two authors are the only ones in scripture who ascribe Jesus' birth at Bethlehem (John practically denies the idea that Jesus was born at Bethlehem) and since their accounts can't be trusted in the slightest, chances are the Savior was never born in Bethlehem at all.

I don't really care whether Jesus was born at Bethlehem or not but the point is that if he was it didn't happen the way Matthew and Luke said it did.

[Enlil-An]

It never says Christ was 2 years old when the wise men arrived at His doorstep.

It says, that after Herod realized his wise men weren't going to return at all, it had been two years since Christ's birth.

You should read it again. The wise men were the ones who told King Herod that the star appeared two years previously. When the wise men find Jesus, Matthew specifically refers to him as a "young child". After the wise men leave, then the Lord warns Joseph to flee into Egypt.

Matthew does not say that Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem.

(He does say that Joseph wanted to put Mary away privily, and I would not be surprised if they left wherever they were FROM [where people knew her, and knew she was unwed/pregnant] and went to a town where people wouldn't know of her condition)

Then why did they return (your words, not Matthews) back to Nazareth? Did they assume everyone in that one-horse town would forget the whole unholy affair after a few years?

Luke states:

39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Which contradicts Matthew who says, "he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth". Compare the wording of the two.

But it doesn't say how long it took to do all the things, what all the things were, and where they were currently dwelling before their return.

Yes it does because it says, "when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord" and since we have the law in Leviticus, whe know that it wouldn't have been more than a month - nowhere near two years.