Where Did The Stories Of Christ's Birth Come From?

[cinepro]

Last Sunday, I had the privilege of substitute teaching in EQ.  And if I'm teaching in December, then by golly we're going to read both accounts of Christ's birth in the New Testament and I'm going to point out how different they are.

 

For those who aren't familiar, the story of Christ's birth is told in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. 

 

Matthew 2 has Joseph and Mary living in a house Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth, being visited by the wise men (who find the "young child" living in a "house"), then leaving to Egypt and only then going to live in Nazareth. 

 

Luke 2 has Joseph and Mary journeying to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth, Jesus being born in a stable and being visited by shepherds, and then Mary and Joseph returning to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus is born (after "Mary's Purification", v.39).

 

Now, apart from these different and apparently contradictory stories, it raises the question of where, exactly, the writers of Matthew and Luke got them in the first place?  Any ideas?

[pogi]

Last Sunday, I had the privilege of substitute teaching in EQ.  And if I'm teaching in December, then by golly we're going to read both accounts of Christ's birth in the New Testament and I'm going to point out how different they are.

 

For those who aren't familiar, the story of Christ's birth is told in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. 

 

Matthew 2 has Joseph and Mary living in a house Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth, being visited by the wise men (who find the "young child" living in a "house"), then leaving to Egypt and only then going to live in Nazareth. 

 

Luke 2 has Joseph and Mary journeying to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth, Jesus being born in a stable and being visited by shepherds, and then Mary and Joseph returning to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus is born (after "Mary's Purification", v.39).

 

Now, apart from these different and apparently contradictory stories, it raises the question of where, exactly, the writers of Matthew and Luke got them in the first place?  Any ideas?

 

I understand that the wise men probably visited several years after Christ's birth.  The Matt 2 account states that Jesus was a "young child" in a house, clearly not a babe in a manger.  Both accounts can be accurate when understood to be different times.

 

They probably got the story from Jesus or someone in his immediate family. 

Edited December 16, 2014 by pogi

[cinepro]

I understand that the wise men probably visited several years after Christ's birth.  The Matt 2 account states that Jesus was a "young child" in a house, clearly not a babe in a manger.  Both accounts can be accurate when understood to be different times.

But the wise men visit Jesus in Bethlehem. Luke 2 says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus's birth.

Matthew 2:22 also points out that on returning from Egypt, Joseph and Mary were going back to their home in Bethlehem until being warned in a dream to go to Galilee.

Edited December 16, 2014 by cinepro

[bluebell]

I'm not seeing how the stories have to be seen as contradictory.  Both stories can be true if the timeline for three wise men is a few months after the birth.

 

Matt. is not very specific in the timing of most of the details, and doesn't talk about the actual birth at all, other than to say it occurred in Bethlehem.  It does provide enough detail to know one thing though.  

 

We do know, according to the text, that the wise men did not begin their journey from 'the east' until the star appeared, and the star appeared when Jesus was born.  That means that there is an undisclosed amount of time between Jesus birthday and the arrival of the wise men-likely weeks to months given their starting point.  Thus, there is no way to read Matt. 2 as saying that the wise men showed up on the day Jesus was born.

[bluebell]

But the wise men visit Jesus in Bethlehem. Luke 2 says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus's birth.

Matthew 2:22 also points out that on returning from Egypt, Joseph and Mary were going back to their home in Bethlehem until being warned in a dream to go to Galilee.

 

That does not preclude them from having moved to Bethlehem some time after Jesus' birth and before the wise men arrived.  (And verse 22 doesn't say they were returning to Bethlehem, but to Judea, which could have been Bethlehem but it's not specified.) 

[pogi]

But the wise men visit Jesus in Bethlehem. Luke 2 says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus's birth.

Matthew 2:22 also points out that on returning from Egypt, Joseph and Mary were going back to their home in Bethlehem until being warned in a dream to go to Galilee.

 

This leads me to believe that they may have moved from Nazareth to Bethlehem some time after his birth.  

 

They go from Nazereth to Bethlehem to pay taxes - Christ is born and visited by shepherds at this time.  They go back to Nazareth 40 days later, then move to Bethlehem some years after that and are visited by wise men.  They then leave to Egypt and instead of returning to their home in Bethlehem, go to Galilee. 

Edited December 16, 2014 by pogi

[stemelbow]

Last Sunday, I had the privilege of substitute teaching in EQ.  And if I'm teaching in December, then by golly we're going to read both accounts of Christ's birth in the New Testament and I'm going to point out how different they are.

 

For those who aren't familiar, the story of Christ's birth is told in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. 

 

Matthew 2 has Joseph and Mary living in a house Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth, being visited by the wise men (who find the "young child" living in a "house"), then leaving to Egypt and only then going to live in Nazareth. 

 

Luke 2 has Joseph and Mary journeying to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth, Jesus being born in a stable and being visited by shepherds, and then Mary and Joseph returning to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus is born (after "Mary's Purification", v.39).

 

Now, apart from these different and apparently contradictory stories, it raises the question of where, exactly, the writers of Matthew and Luke got them in the first place?  Any ideas?

The stories were probably passed around orally for years, getting things mixed up a little in the process.

[cinepro]

This leads me to believe that they may have moved from Nazareth to Bethlehem some time after his birth.  

 

They go from Nazereth to Bethlehem to pay taxes - Christ is born and visited by shepherds at this time.  They go back to Nazareth 40 days later, then move to Bethlehem some years after that and are visited by wise men.  They then leave to Egypt and instead of returning to their home in Bethlehem, go to Galilee.

Brilliant!

[rodheadlee]

Mom, my Mom told me the stories of the birth of Jesus Christ when I was a wee lad. Mom wouldn't lie.

[Glenn101]

Reading Luke more carefully, the narrative does not preclude the wise men from visiting the Christ child in Nazareth. Herod sent them to Bethelem, but they actually followed the star, wherever it led them,:

"9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh."

 

That text does not specify Bethlehem as the place where the child was at that time. We have only assumed that it was Bethlehem from the preceding verses.

 

Glenn

Edited December 16, 2014 by Glenn101

[Steve Thompson]

Last Sunday, I had the privilege of substitute teaching in EQ.  And if I'm teaching in December, then by golly we're going to read both accounts of Christ's birth in the New Testament and I'm going to point out how different they are.

 

For those who aren't familiar, the story of Christ's birth is told in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. 

 

Matthew 2 has Joseph and Mary living in a house Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth, being visited by the wise men (who find the "young child" living in a "house"), then leaving to Egypt and only then going to live in Nazareth. 

 

Luke 2 has Joseph and Mary journeying to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth, Jesus being born in a stable and being visited by shepherds, and then Mary and Joseph returning to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus is born (after "Mary's Purification", v.39).

 

Now, apart from these different and apparently contradictory stories, it raises the question of where, exactly, the writers of Matthew and Luke got them in the first place?  Any ideas?

Might I suggest the essay "Away in a Manger" in the April 1995 issue of Sunstone?

[JDave]

I'm guessing they asked Mary.

ETA: Which I guess is pretty much the same as rodheadlee's response.

Edited December 16, 2014 by JDave

[mormonnewb]

Here is an explanation I found online from a Gentile source.  I find the Gentiles particularly helpful in these instances because they've had about 2,000 years to reconcile these accounts.

 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111212053858AAk5k1U

 

As many here have suggested, it largely comes down to an issue of timing.  Both accounts are true but the events occurred at different times.

 

What I find more interesting is some of the explanations (in other articles) as to WHY scholars think that Luke and Matthew reported different accounts to their respective audiences.  I think that approach really helps in demonstrating that the same event can be TRUTHFULLY described in seemingly contradictory ways because the audiences are different.  That insight alone might save a testimony when someone comes across other "contradictory" creation, resurrection and First Vision narratives.

Edited December 16, 2014 by mormonnewb

[pogi]

Reading Luke more carefully, the narrative does not preclude the wise men from visiting the Christ child in Nazareth. Herod sent them to Bethelem, but they actually followed the star, wherever it led them,:

"9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh."

 

That text does not specify Bethlehem as the place where the child was at that time. We have only assumed that it was Bethlehem from the preceding verses.

 

Glenn

 

I thought the same thing, but verse 22 does suggest that they were returning to Judea, not Nazareth, from Egypt.  Nazareth is not in Judea but Bethlehem is.

Edited December 17, 2014 by pogi

[why me]

Last Sunday, I had the privilege of substitute teaching in EQ.  And if I'm teaching in December, then by golly we're going to read both accounts of Christ's birth in the New Testament and I'm going to point out how different they are.

 

For those who aren't familiar, the story of Christ's birth is told in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. 

 

Matthew 2 has Joseph and Mary living in a house Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth, being visited by the wise men (who find the "young child" living in a "house"), then leaving to Egypt and only then going to live in Nazareth. 

 

Luke 2 has Joseph and Mary journeying to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth, Jesus being born in a stable and being visited by shepherds, and then Mary and Joseph returning to Nazareth 40 days after Jesus is born (after "Mary's Purification", v.39).

 

Now, apart from these different and apparently contradictory stories, it raises the question of where, exactly, the writers of Matthew and Luke got them in the first place?  Any ideas?

Most likely they are somewhat made up for faith purposes. Since no one was actually there who wrote the gospels I would suppose that they used poetic sentences to describe the birth to shore up the faith of the early christians. We need to remember that the new testament is basically a faith enhancer for the early christians and Christ needed to be shown to be special in very dramatic ways.

 

Unless of course, Christ spoke about his birth which is not recorded in the NT. I am sure that Christ said much more than what was recorded in the NT.

Edited December 16, 2014 by why me

[Stroopwafel]

From David Flusser's The Sage from Galilee (p. 8-9):

 

 

Since Matthew and Luke provide the Davidic genealogy of Jesus, it is no surprise that it is they who set the place of his birth in Bethlehem, the city of David's birth. Nevertheless, here the two accounts display important differences. According to Luke 2:4, Jesus' family traveled to Bethlehem only because of the census. Before the birth of Jesus, they lived in Nazareth to which they returned. According to Matthew 2:23, however, the family resided in Bethlehem in Judea before the birth of Jesus and settled in Nazareth only after their return from Egypt. It would seem, then, that both the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and the proof of his Davidic ancestry, arose because many believed that the Messiah would be of David's line and would, like David, be born in Bethlehem. This follows plainly from John 7:41-42. The passage tells of some who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, saying, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" John, therefore, knew neither that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, nor that he was descended from David. At the same time, this incident shows how people demanded the fulfillment of these two conditions as legitimization of the messianic claim.

 

Underline mine.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Stroopwafel

[Duncan]

I think Luke was written from Mary's perspective and Matthew from Joseph's

[bluebell]

From David Flusser's The Sage from Galilee (p. 8-9):

Underline mine.

The issue though is that Matt 2:23 doesn't actually say that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born.

[Stroopwafel]

The issue though is that Matt 2:23 doesn't actually say that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born.

 

Well, the verse itself doesn't say it, but if you read from the beginning of chapter 2, the family did reside in Bethlehem before Jesus' birth. Verse 23 says they (well, Jesus) came and dwelt in Nazareth.

 

After reading the verse, I totally grant you that it doesn't explicitly state Flusser's point, but read in context, one see that, as the concluding verse to the whole chapter, it does mean that "the family resided in Bethlehem in Judea before the birth of Jesus and settled in Nazareth only after their return from Egypt."

[strappinglad]

Herod hints at the time frame from the wise men. He picked 2 years of age as the death age.

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................

..........................................................   

Now, apart from these different and apparently contradictory stories, it raises the question of where, exactly, the writers of Matthew and Luke got them in the first place?  Any ideas?

The earliest documents in the New Testament are the Pauline epistles.  The 4 Gospels were assembled much later from a variety of sources (many of them oral, as pointed out by stemelbow) and are thought by scholars to represent pious views of early Christians in a context of Church worship and "theological understanding" (Raymond Brown).  In no sense are they professional, scholarly documents laid down according to strict rules of sequential and verifiable history.  Scattered throughout are citations of OT scriptures which are being fulfilled.  Form critical analysis has shown how the Gospels share many motifs and type scenes with the OT and even pagan literature.  Not only, for example, does the king of Egypt seek to kill all the Hebrew male infants in Exodus, but he has three magi advise him of the birth of Moses (Philo).

 

Of the three synoptic Gospels, Mark is thought by some scholars to be a ritual dramatic text which was performed, while John goes its own way, but revels in specialized Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) style language.

 

A couple of elementary books can help those who are interested to see what this means:

Gerhard Lohfink, The Bible: Now I Get It! A Form Criticism Handbook (1979).

William R. Stegner, Narrative Theology in Early Jewish Christianity (1989).

[Glenn101]

I thought the same thing, but verse 22 does suggest that they were returning to Judea, not Nazareth, from Egypt.  Nazareth is not in Judea but Bethlehem is.

 

Granted that the text suggests that Joseph et al were planning to go back into Judea, not Galilee. That does not rule out the possibility of the Nazareth account by Luke. From the paucity of information, one could plausibly suspect that Josph may have decided to return and live in his ancestral home area rather than return to Nazareth, but decided against it when he learned that Archelaus, the son of Herod, was the new ruler in Jerusalem, he then decided to go back to Nazareth.

 

And there is also the possibility that one or both of the accounts contain a few innaccuracies.

 

Glenn

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm very fond of Margaret Barker's 2008 book Christmas: The Original Story.  It's very much worth reading at this time of year.  As usual, she points out many interesting contextual things, draws on that context to illuminate aspects of the text that we tend to overlook, raises interesting questions about the assumptions and associated limits of conventional scholarship, and she brings in unfamiliar accounts that have a remarkably familiar resonance with the temple.

 

Jack Welch reviewed it for the old Review.

 

 

 

Barker uses two main quarries of building blocks in reconstructing the original Christmas story (or stories). As most New Testament commentators also do, Barker weaves into her analysis a rich array of threads—drawn from evidences about cultural backgrounds, political contexts, and biblical prophecies—as she gives form and sense to the segmented elements contained in the traditional Christmas accounts. But in addition, as she does in all of her signature works, Barker adds information from two distinctive spheres:

1. Temple themes: She points out words and phrases that appear in the New Testament's Christmas stories that call up temple concepts and practices. For example, supporting roles in these stories are identified for temple personnel and sacred rituals, including

    °  angelic hosts (p. 2),

    °  coming through the veil to be tabernacled in the flesh (p. 32),

    °  swaddling clothes (pp. 75–76) and garments of skin and light (pp. 35–36),

    °  being anointed with the myrrh oil (p. 35),

    °  the secret rituals of the holy of holies and its glory that "leads into a complex web of associations that join together the high priesthood and the temple, Adam and Eve and the lost garden of Eden, and the birth of Jesus" (p. 35),

    °  the descent of the high priest out of the holy of holies to be seen by mortals (pp. 44–49).

More important, however, than any single temple element is the overall temple register of the sublime narrative that these stories are trying to relate to their various audiences. The common factor in the rhetorical voice of all these stories is that of supernal holiness. The good news of the most sacred birth of the Messiah, the Prophet, the Priest, and the King is communicated most effectively by setting the Christmas story in the context of the temple, the holiest place known in all the world.

2. Temple Readings: Margaret Barker also advances new interpretations and translations of words and phrases that early Christians drew into their stories of Christmas. Although these words are standard parts of the familiar vocabulary of Christmas readings, they carry with them meanings that come from an older stratum of religious history, always yielding interesting insights. Barker finds in these words evidence that the Christmas story originally was understood, at least by some people, in terms of a hidden and partially lost tradition.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1465&index=3

 

FWIW,

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited December 19, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

Might I suggest the essay "Away in a Manger" in the April 1995 issue of Sunstone?

 

You could, but I'd rather read the article on page 35.

[Whiskeypete]

My (admittedly heretical) theory:

Luke got his information from Mary.

Matthew took some stories that were floating around about Jesus's birth, took a bunch of prophecies about the birth of the Messiah and twisted the facts to make them fit his interpretations of the prophecies in an effort to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.

I've always found the Luke nativity to be touching, the Mathew nativity to be contrived.