The First Christmas

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[poi]

I suspect it has come up before but I'd like to understand current thinking on this matter.How much of the nativity story is considered historical by Christians?Is there  evidence outside the NT for Herod's slaughter of the innocents or the Roman census?Can the conflict between Mathew and Luke on the flight to Egypt really be resolved?Did Quirinius actually rule Judea at the time?Where did Luke get his information on this?

[kwd111]

I suspect it has come up before but I'd like to understand current thinking on this matter.How much of the nativity story is considered historical by Christians?

Perhaps it would be easier by just saying that which is not historical.

1)  The kings that offered gifts were not at the manger but came later
2)  The birth wasn't on Dec 25th.  Through a program dealing with astronomy, they estimated that it was the kings that gave the gifts on Dec. 25th.

Is there  evidence outside the NT for Herod's slaughter of the innocents or the Roman census?

The only one that I have found is below.  Bethlehem was a small town and what happened is also small among all the atrocities of Herod.  The event happened in the last two years of his life... this would be small in comparison to what he did during his life.  

This cruelty of Herod seems alluded to in very decisive terms by Macrobius, who flourished toward the conclusion of the fourth century. In his chapter De jocis Augusti in alios, et aliorum rursus in ipsum, he says, Cum audisser inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, rex Judeorum, intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait, Melius est Herodis PORCUM esse, quam FILIUM. "When he heard that among these male infants about two years old, which Herod, the king of the Jews, ordered to be slain in Syria, one of his sons was also murdered, he said: 'It is better to be Herod's HOG than his SON.'" Saturn. lib. 2 c. 4. The point of this saying consists in this, that Herod, professing Judaism, his religion forbade his killing swine, or having anything to do with their flesh; therefore his hog would have been safe, where his son lost his life.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Can the conflict between Mathew and Luke on the flight to Egypt really be resolved?

Conflict?

Did Quirinius actually rule Judea at the time?

Quote: But recently, confirmation that Quirinius was in Syria during the first Roman census taken between 8 B.C. and 5 B.C. has been found.
      First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they match up with the Bible.
       The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:
      "From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out  . . . "
       Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:
      "I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."
      It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered.

Where did Luke get his information on this?

He probably lived through the Census.  Eye witness?

[Howiedds]

Poi:

I suspect it has come up before but I'd like to understand current thinking on this matter.How much of the nativity story is considered historical by Christians?

The only features of the two narratives found in Matthew and Luke that are common to both birth narratives are Jesus and the holy family, and Bethlehem. Other than that, they are two completely different stories. Read them side by side, one after another.

Is there  evidence outside the NT for Herod's slaughter of the innocents

Not one contemporary historian records such a slaughter, but it is reminiscent of Pharaoh's slaughter of the new borns that is in the Moses narrative, and Matthew's theme is that Jesus is to be compared to Moses. Perhaps that is the reason for his narrative of the slaughter of the innocents.

or the Roman census?

Josephus writes of the events ca 6 CE. Around that time, the Romans grew weary of the sons of Herod ruling in Judea and they officially made it a Roman province rather than a puppet state. At that point, Quirinius became the governor of Syria and part of his domain was Judea. At that time there was a census, probably for tax purposes. Josephus said that it sparked a revolt by the Zealots.

The problem for church historians is that Luke reports the birth of Jesus during that census and Matthew says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod who died in 4BCE. That's a ten year difference. OTOH, with Matthew and Luke being written 70 years later, such mistakes would be understandable since neither had a newspaper morgue or library to look up the year of Herod's death or the census. The oral tradition on which they were drawing was their only source, so such discrepancies are understandable.

Can the conflict between Mathew and Luke on the flight to Egypt really be resolved?

No. The conflicting details are irreconcilable but I'm sure there are posters here who will try. The basis of both birth stories is the fulfilling of the Jewish belief that the messiah would be from the house of David whose homeland was the territory of Judah, the heart of which was Bethlehem. Since Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth, there needed to be a narrative to get him born in Bethlehem. Luke and Matthew had two different traditions to accomplish the historicizing of prophecy.

 One has the holy family living in Nazareth returning to their native Bethlehem for the census (something never required for a Roman census.) That way, Jesus of Nazareth could be born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah's prophecy.

Matthew has the holy family living in Bethlehem, Jesus being born there without a 90 mile donkey trip for Mary from Nazareth. They flee to Egypt (remember that Matthew was comparing Jesus to Moses) to escape the slaughter of the innocents. Hearing of Herod's death, they return but are afraid that the law to kill is still on the books under Herod's son, so they skirt Bethlehem and go to Nazareth. This narrative too can account for Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem, again in order to fulfill the prophecy of Micah. The stories are for christological purposes and are ahistorical.

Did Quirinius actually rule Judea at the time?Where did Luke get his information on this?

Quirinius ruled ca 6-7 CE and there was a census, according to Josephus. Luke probably used an oral tradition that remembered a census and use it as the backdrop for getting Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

Protests to follow!

[kwd111]

Poi:

I suspect it has come up before but I'd like to understand current thinking on this matter.How much of the nativity story is considered historical by Christians?

The only features of the two narratives found in Matthew and Luke that are common to both birth narratives are Jesus and the holy family, and Bethlehem. Other than that, they are two completely different stories. Read them side by side, one after another.

Not different stories... but one filling in the gaps of the other.

Is there  evidence outside the NT for Herod's slaughter of the innocents

Not one contemporary historian records such a slaughter, but it is reminiscent of Pharaoh's slaughter of the new borns that is in the Moses narrative, and Matthew's theme is that Jesus is to be compared to Moses. Perhaps that is the reason for his narrative of the slaughter of the innocents.

There is no historical record of Jacob's children killing all of the men of Shechem either but that doesn't mean in didn't happen.

Remember, that Bethlehem was a small town, obscure with no great influence or of interest and the event happened at the end of the life of Herod.

With the murder of literally hundreds and hundreds of people in his lifetime, including his wife, children and relatives and an attempted suicide - what was a little more in an obscure town that was not of significance?

Additionally, Matthew can also be declared a "contemporary historian".  Unless, of course, one chooses not to believe his account.

or the Roman census?

Josephus writes of the events ca 6 CE. Around that time, the Romans grew weary of the sons of Herod ruling in Judea and they officially made it a Roman province rather than a puppet state. At that point, Quirinius became the governor of Syria and part of his domain was Judea. At that time there was a census, probably for tax purposes. Josephus said that it sparked a revolt by the Zealots.

The problem for church historians is that Luke reports the birth of Jesus during that census and Matthew says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod who died in 4BCE. That's a ten year difference. OTOH, with Matthew and Luke being written 70 years later, such mistakes would be understandable since neither had a newspaper morgue or library to look up the year of Herod's death or the census. The oral tradition on which they were drawing was their only source, so such discrepancies are understandable.

Please take note of recent archaeological findings that show of other census taken during that tiMe

Can the conflict between Mathew and Luke on the flight to Egypt really be resolved?

No. The conflicting details are irreconcilable but I'm sure there are posters here who will try. The basis of both birth stories is the fulfilling of the Jewish belief that the messiah would be from the house of David whose homeland was the territory of Judah, the heart of which was Bethlehem. Since Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth, there needed to be a narrative to get him born in Bethlehem. Luke and Matthew had two different traditions to accomplish the historicizing of prophecy.

 One has the holy family living in Nazareth returning to their native Bethlehem for the census (something never required for a Roman census.) That way, Jesus of Nazareth could be born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah's prophecy.

Matthew has the holy family living in Bethlehem, Jesus being born there without a 90 mile donkey trip for Mary from Nazareth. They flee to Egypt (remember that Matthew was comparing Jesus to Moses) to escape the slaughter of the innocents. Hearing of Herod's death, they return but are afraid that the law to kill is still on the books under Herod's son, so they skirt Bethlehem and go to Nazareth. This narrative too can account for Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem, again in order to fulfill the prophecy of Micah. The stories are for christological purposes and are ahistorical.

How one approaches this historical event determines how one views it.  With all due respect to you Howie, your view and approach is of one of disbelief therefore you will magnify what you believe is wrong.

Rather than force scriptures to contradict each other... why no just let them flow together?

All you have to do is go to a site that has the harmony of the Gospels and it will just flow.  But you are right in various points.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah (as you noted).  Of course, for a time, was living in Bethlehem and Nazareth as you also noted.

Required that people go back to their birthplace for a census not being required?  Only if you ignore this historical quote:

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:
      "From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out  . . . "

I guess that word "never" that you used should be changed at this point.

Yes... he did go to Egypt and returned.

One must remember, as we see with the Roman Census,  what we once believed as "never" changes as more archaeological findings are unearthed.  Your position was only based on your beliefs and what knowledge that you currently had which now will change because of new findings.

Certainly there are no "disagreements" between the gospels... just a disagreement in your interpretation.

Did Quirinius actually rule Judea at the time?Where did Luke get his information on this?

Quirinius ruled ca 6-7 CE and there was a census, according to Josephus. Luke probably used an oral tradition that remembered a census and use it as the backdrop for getting Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

Protests to follow!

LOL     NO protests... just correcting your fallacies.

We know that the English KJV translation has some flaws of which Luke 2:2 can be explained.

One of two proposed explanation is as follows by one who is a greater student than I:



[And this taxing was first made ...] This verse has given as much perplexity, perhaps, as any one in the New Testament. The difficulty consists in the fact that "Cyrenius," or "Quirinius," was not governor of Syria until 12 or 15 years after the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. At that time "Varus" was president of Syria. Herod was succeeded by "Archelaus," who reigned eight or nine years; and AFTER he was removed, Judea was annexed to the province of Syria, and Cyrenius was sent as the governor (Josephus, "Ant.," b. xvii. 5). The difficulty has been to reconcile this account with that in Luke. Various attempts have been made to do this. The one that seems most satisfactory is that proposed by Dr. Lardner. According to his view, the passage here means, "This was the "first" census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria." It is called the "first" to distinguish it from one "afterward" taken by Cyrenius, Acts 5:37. It is said to be the census taken by "Cyrenius; governor of Syria; "not that he was "then" governor, but that it was taken by him who was afterward familiarly known as governor. "Cyrenius, qovernor of Syria," was the name by which the man was known when Luke wrote his gospel, and it was not improper to say that the taxing was made by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria," though he might not have been actually governor for many years afterward.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database Copyright © 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)


And happy Hanukkah to you from the bottom of my heart.

[Metis]

I think we have to be very careful and not try and insist that the scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian, are objective history.  If we do so, we have ignored the workings of the early Asian mind that so often was more subjective than objective.  To take a previous event and draw a parallel with a contemporary event was par for the course, and the stories can sometimes be mixed together whereas it may be difficult, if not impossible at times, to tell where one story ends and the other begins.  

Most historians that I have read do not believe that Jesus was literally born in Bethlehem because there would be no reason for us to believe as such, but there's plenty of reason not to believe as such.  And what may well be reading is that the authors may have been drawing parallels between Jesus and King David, so there's probably going to be a certain degree of poetic license involved.  Nor is it necessary that we view the differences between Luke and Matthew as being tragically inconsistent, because subjectivity doesn't demand complete consistency.    

It appears that the early church wasn't that knowledgeable about Jesus' early life since so little is written, but they sure were interested in his ministry and his end of life.  It's quite possible that Jesus may have said almost nothing about how he grew up because that probably was not his primary focus.  If people who have just met you and are interested in your take on what's happening today and what'll happen tomorrow, then why would you talk a lot about your early childhood?  Only my closest friends and family know about my childhood, for example.    

I know this approach may be disconcerting to some because it leaves many questions unanswered, but when we're dealing with rather subjective accounts, there are going to be these kinds of gaps left.  It simply goes with the territory.  

[poi]

Christians do seem to tell a nativity story combining Mathew and Luke.Certainly there is no contradiction in having both shepards and wise men visit Jesus in the manger.But I have never heard an account where Joseph and Mary already lived in Bethlehem.That would eliminate the no-room-at-the-inn problem and radically change the story.Do Christians ignore Mathew on this point?It seems odd to fault Howie for approaching the story from a skeptical viewpoint.Anyone is entitled to believe what they want but when they assert that something is historical fact,it invites an examination of the basis for that assertion.Christians are very good at this when assessing the validity of Muslim claims about the life of Muhammed.I understand the idea that each Gospel was just a different point of view on the same events but it seems just as plausible that the Gospel writers had different ideas about the objective historical truth of what they wrote.The line between myth and objective reality may have been much more ambiguous  and of much less concern to them.

[kwd111]

Christians do seem to tell a nativity story combining Mathew and Luke.  Certainly there is no contradiction in having both shepards and wise men visit Jesus in the manger.

Matt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child  KJV

For your edification.  At this point it was a "young child" and no longer lying in a manger.

But I have never heard an account where Joseph and Mary already lived in Bethlehem.That would eliminate the no-room-at-the-inn problem and radically change the story.Do Christians ignore Mathew on this point?

NOt at all...

look where Matthew starts:

Matt 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,  KJV

It starts with the birth and then jumps to the 'young child'.  no contradictions.

It seems odd to fault Howie for approaching the story from a skeptical viewpoint.Anyone is entitled to believe what they want but when they assert that something is historical fact,it invites an examination of the basis for that assertion.

I don't mind skeptical at all.  How can one inquire if not to understand ones belief?  I think Howie comes in, not as skeptical, but as "I simply don't believe."  I don't hold that against him.  I consider him a friend.  And I respect his position.  But his stance of not believing doesn't invalidate what God has said.

Christians are very good at this when assessing the validity of Muslim claims about the life of Muhammed.I understand the idea that each Gospel was just a different point of view on the same events but it seems just as plausible that the Gospel writers had different ideas about the objective historical truth of what they wrote.The line between myth and objective reality may have been much more ambiguous  and of much less concern to them.

Understand that point too.  So we continue on the Q & A - which is always healthy and we continue to promote love as the foundation for relationships.

[poi]

So the wise men visited Jesus at his famliy's house in Bethlehem?

[kwd111]

So the wise men visited Jesus at his famliy's house in Bethlehem?

As far as we can determine.  The death of the children of Bethlehem was from 2 years and under (as well as it saying it was a young child now) which leads one to understand that quite some time had passed between the birth and the visitation of the Maggi

[Howiedds]

Poi:

And here we go, just as I predicted.

Not different stories... but one filling in the gaps of the other.

Gaps? In Matthew, the holy family has a very nice apartment and are living in Bethlehem at the time of the birth.

In Luke, they have traveled 90 miles and have no place to stay, so they inquired at the inn where there was no room. That's how Jesus ends up in a feeding trough, a manger.

Howie:
Not one contemporary historian records such a slaughter, but it is reminiscent of Pharaoh's slaughter of the new borns that is in the Moses narrative, and Matthew's theme is that Jesus is to be compared to Moses. Perhaps that is the reason for his narrative of the slaughter of the innocents.

There is no historical record of Jacob's children killing all of the men of Shechem either but that doesn't mean in didn't happen.

And I would never tell anyone not of my faith about Jacob's children as if it were history for that very reason.

There is another difference as well. The events of the Christian testament take place 1500 years after the Genesis narratives. in the full light of recorded history. That history is well documented by the anal Romans. The slaughter of the innocents by a major historical figure in the Roman Empire might get some notice; there is none.

Remember, that Bethlehem was a small town, obscure with no great influence or of interest and the event happened at the end of the life of Herod.

Remember how well documented is the rest of Herod's escapades in Roman history. There is no reason to think that such a slaughter would get nary a mention. The Romans recorded Pilate's excesses in that same small, "obscure" province, but not Herod's.

It is more likely that Matthew is drawing on the well known murder by Herod of his own children and enlarging his reputation by speaking of him killing everyone's children to create the scenario of getting Jesus of Nazareth a Bethlehem birth.

Additionally, Matthew can also be declared a "contemporary historian".  Unless, of course, one chooses not to believe his account.

Oh please. Statements like that lose Christians any credibility. Who would take that seriously? You don't know who wrote the Gospel of Matthew or when it was written. Your Gospels are not history texts; they are books of faith.

Please take note of recent archaeological findings that show of other census taken during that tiMe

Please take note of your own gospels:
And there came to pass, in those days that there went out a decree...first made when Quirinius was governor. He was not ever governor when Herod was alive. At about the time of Herod's death, Quirinius was off in Galatia fighting for Rome. 

Now, if you will note, in my earlier post, I allowed for the discrepancy given that the gospel writers were writing so long after the events that dates of Herod's death, census taking, and Quirinius' bio would have been difficult to pinpoint. There was not even a common calendar that was universally in use. You're difficulty is in accepting that the gospels may have been mistaken about any events that they record.

How one approaches this historical event determines how one views it.  With all due respect to you Howie, your view and approach is of one of disbelief therefore you will magnify what you believe is wrong.

No magnification is necessary. Your gospels are all anyone needs. I do approach them without faith, and as books of faith they are not "wrong." They are not history. That isn't their purpose.

Why did they inquire at an inn if they had a two bedroom, two bath in Bethlehem. They didn't want to mess up the sheets at home?

Rather than force scriptures to contradict each other... why no just let them flow together?

No flow and no reconciling the two accounts. Where there are shepherds, no magi. Where there are magi, there are no shepherds. Where there is an inn, there is no residence. Where there's a residence, there's no inn. Where there's a flight to Egypt and a return that circumvents Bethlehem to Galilee, there is no donkey ride. Where there is a donkey ride, they go to Jerusalem not Egypt.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah (as you noted).  Of course, for a time, was living in Bethlehem and Nazareth as you also noted.

The gospels have Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah.
You don't know where he was born, but he was called Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Bethlehem. It doesn't matter where you lived; they call you by where you were born.

 

The one that seems most satisfactory is that proposed by Dr. Lardner. According to his view, the passage here means, "This was the "first" census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria." It is called the "first" to distinguish it from one "afterward" taken by Cyrenius, Acts 5:37.

Screw around with the wording all you'd like, but what your gospel says is:

And this registration was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria and he wasn't there until 6 CE.

It is called the "first" to distinguish it from one "afterward" taken by Cyrenius, Acts 5:37. It is said to be the census taken by "Cyrenius; governor of Syria; "not that he was "then" governor, but that it was taken by him who was afterward familiarly known as governor. "Cyrenius, qovernor of Syria," was the name by which the man was known when Luke wrote his gospel, and it was not improper to say that the taxing was made by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria," though he might not have been actually governor for many years afterward.

What double talk! The rebellion of Acts 5:30 is the one mentioned by Josephus that instigated the formation of the Zealot resistance to Rome, probably because the census was a prelude to taxation. It is the same census as the one that Josephus credits to the time of Quirinius in ca 6 CE. The lengths that Christians go to when all they need to do to end the argument is to say, THIS IS OUR FAITH.

[poi]

So are there some Christian sects who tell a nativity story of Jesus born at home in Bethlehem and then being visited a year or two later by the wise men?If not,why?It seems that scenario is just as Biblical as the manger one.Maybe the shepards could still visit following kwd's "flow together" approach.

[kwd111]

So are there some Christian sects who tell a nativity story of Jesus born at home in Bethlehem and then being visited a year or two later by the wise men? If not,why?It seems that scenario is just as Biblical as the manger one.  Maybe the shepards could still visit following kwd's "flow together" approach.

Those who have studied the Bible understand that the visit of the Maggi was not during the birth  of Jesus but some time afterward.  Those who haven't studied the Bible think that they did bring the gifts in the manger.

However, the point is so insignificant and not a sticky point to Christians in general, that most people just include it in a Christmas play as happening together at the same time.

[poi]

So Jesus was born at home in Bethlehem?Not in a Bethlehem manger?Or was he born in a manger and then the family found a house where the wise men later found the family?

[kwd111]

So Jesus was born at home in Bethlehem?Not in a Bethlehem manger?Or was he born in a manger and then the family found a house where the wise men later found the family?

Born in a manger and then finding a house.  Remember the census still had to be taken and a manger is not a great permanent place for living. 

May you have a prosperous new year.

[poi]

So after the wise men arrived at the house,then the family left...but to Egypt then Nazareth or direct to Nazareth?

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC