birth narratives

[DivineNames]

Matthew 2:1-23


Jesus was born in Bethlehem, (in Judaea), in the days of Herod.

An angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and warned him to flee into Egypt with his family, because Herod was looking for Jesus and wanted to kill him.

Joseph immediately takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt.

When Herod died, they were afraid to go to Judaea, because they found out that another Herod (Archelaus) was ruling it, and so they "went and lived in a town called Nazareth".



Luke 2:1-39

Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, (in Galilee).

Augustus Caesar required that everyone register for tax purposes, in the home town of a remote ancestor apparently.

Joseph was descended from David, and so he went to Bethlehem with Mary.

While they were there, Mary gave birth to Jesus.

They visited Jerusalem.

They returned to their own city Nazareth.


Questions

The stories seem to contradict each other. Can this be explained?

Why would Joseph have had to register in the home town of one of his ancestors forty-two generations back? (According to Luke's genealogy, 3:23-38)

Are there any independent sources which support-

(a) Herod had killed, "all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under". (Matthew 2:16 NIV)

(b) There was a decree given by Augustus Caesar which required people to travel so they could register for tax purposes.

 

[DivineNames]

Perhaps the Gospel writers just made stuff up?

 

[AHIMSA]

In a sense they were "making things up", but we have to understand this is a different time period. Nobody would have accused them of making anything up at all, for their intended audiences would likely have read this on a different level.

Writing in a Greek culture, a "hero" would have a myths surrounding his birth. This myths were not to be taken literally, but we are to examine the myth for truth, as all myths contain truths...and the most profound truths tend to be ahistorical.

If we examine Matthew, we see that the author is trying to link Jesus to Jewish tradition. In placing him in Bethlehem Jesus is linked to King David, and thus proclaimed to be "The New King of Israel". Furthermore, we see the author of Matthew trying to portray Jesus as the new Moses. Like Moses, Jesus escapes the "murder of the innocent" perpetrated by an unlawful king. The author continues this when Jesus gives the so called "Sermon on the Mount". The mount of the beatitudes is infact not a mountain at all, and Luke reports this sermon to have been delivered on "a level place". Why does Matthew write that it was a mount? Because Jesus is the "New Moses" delivering the "New Law", so it draws important parallels to the Hebrew Bible.

Wise men from afar, great shinning stars, a virgin birth. All these are common elements to Greek and pagan mythos. These are incorporated into distinctly Jewish elements, to appeal to both audiences.

Simply, you can't take these stories at a literal value because they conflict. For example, if Rome was really conducting a census, would it be logical for Herod to start mass murder in the middle of it? I doubt Rome would have been pleased.