Looking For Historical Accuracy In The Nativity Story

 

I was going through the Nativity narrative in the Bible recently. Among other things I wanted to check the passages for historical accuracy. In this installment we'll look at the Census in Luke chapter 2, the "Slaughter of the Innocents" in Matthew chapter 2, and Herod who is featured in both books.

The Census

Luke 2:1-4 reads:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. ² This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. ³ All went to their own towns to be registered. ⁴ Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. (NRSVUE)

Joseph has to travel to his ancestral home to take part in this new census. Depending on which translation you’re reading Luke 2:2 specifically mentions Quirinius taking the census. There was, in fact, a census in 6 AD referred to as the Census of Quirinius, so far so good. The census was in response to Herod the Great’s death (remember that for later, it will be on the test). 

The point of the census was to see the population by area in order to see what Herod had been in control of. This would allow Caesar to appropriately collect property tax from Herod's son, among other things. Why then would the census require people to travel? Wouldn't it defeat the entire purpose of the census?

The truth is the Census of Quirinius didn't require people to travel! In fact, there has never--at any time in history--been a census which requires people to go to their ancestors' hometown from 1,000 years ago! There’s no record of it happening, nor does it make logical sense if you think about it. 

That would be the equivalent of me having to fly my ass to Italy, in order to take the United States census; because my Great Great x 40 grandfather lived there. Which, by the way, I don’t have access to a genealogy that goes back that far. I’m guessing most people don’t.

So, if the census doesn't make people move around, why was the census mentioned at all by Luke? It was well known that Jesus was from Nazareth, but the Jews believed the messiah would come from Bethlehem. Luke knew Jesus came from Nazareth, but he needed him to be from Bethlehem. Luke's solution was to invent a story explaining why Jesus was "actually" born in Bethlehem.

Massacre of the Innocents

When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the magi.

Matthew 2:16-18 NRSVUE

 

Did Herod actually order the death of every baby in Bethlehem? Why no. It may surprise you to learn there is zero historical record of any such massacre ever taking place! Not in Bethlehem and not involving Herod.! 

There was documentation of other horrible things Herod had done, including the murder of his own sons, but no records of the massacre of all the babies in an entire city. An event that significant would be recorded somewhere else, certainly.

So, why was it in Matthew if it didn’t actually happen? Matthew was written some 80 years after Herod had died, and Herod had a pretty nasty reputation. Matthew (much like Luke) knowing Jesus was from Nazareth had to come up with a narrative device allowing Jesus to actually be from Bethlehem. Matthew invented a story where Jesus’ family always lived in Bethlehem, but had to flee due to the Massacre.
 

Herod The Great

One of the common threads between these two stories is Herod. Specifically Herod The Great (or Herod I). This is important to differentiate from Herod Antipas, Herod the Great's son. When Matthew talks about Herod killing children he is referring to Herod I not his son. Matthew also mentions Herod dying before Jesus and his family move to Nazareth, but after they flee to Egypt. 

Luke talks about the census taking place before Jesus was born. We know from history, the Census didn't take place until after Herod The Great's death.Therefore, according to Luke, Herod was dead before Jesus was born!

Wait a second! If Herod died before Jesus was born, how did he also order the death of children after Jesus was born, and then die again?!?! 

Obviously he didn't. Herod never killed all the babies in Bethlehem, and he certainly didn't come back from the dead to do so. The authors of Matthew and Luke just couldn't agree on when Jesus was born relative to Herod's death. 

Conclusion

The authors of Matthew and Luke didn't really care about being historically accurate. They were worried about making Jesus fulfill a prophecy. They didn't have proof he was born in Bethlehem, so they just had to make their own. Luke invents a bizarre version of a census, Matthew make up a massacre, and neither one of them could agree when the whole thing took place.

Resurrection Narrative: The Bible in Parallel

 

 

With Easter Sunday right around the corner, I thought it an excellent time to go over the four gospels in parallel and tell the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’m sure the four gospels in tandem will prove to form a beautiful tapestry.

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb
John 20:1a

Our story starts with Mary Magdalene going to the tomb by herself:

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
Matthew 28:1b

My mistake. I Must have overlooked the “other Mary”. Okay, so Mary and Mary got to the tomb--

 “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.”
Mark 16:1

Okay, sorry--Mary, Mary and Salome went to the tomb--

Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.
Luke 24:10

Okay [Breathes deeply] Mary and Mary and Joanna and Salome and “the other women” went to the tomb. I’m sure Matthew, Mark, and John just forgot about the other women (hardly surprising in a society which constantly overlooks the achievements of women). So what did they find at the tomb when they got there?

They found the stone rolled away from the tomb
Luke 24:2

 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb
John 20:1

 When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back.
Mark 16:4

Yes, the stone was already rolled away when they got there! How miraculous! How mysterious. I guess we’ll never know exactly how it happened since it happened before anyone got there--

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Matthew 28:1b-2

Umm . . . Maybe Mark, Luke, and John simply forgot to mention the Great Earthquake. . . and the Angel of the Lord descending from heaven . . . rolling the stone . . . and sitting on it. Such a mundane detail was simply not worth mentioning to them. So then the angel sitting on the stone told them all not to be afraid and also told them Jesus was still alive--

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
Mark 16:5-6

Okay I guess there was also a guy who told them the same thing.

They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body. 4 While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. 5 The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen.
Luke 24:2-5

Okay so, there was one angel sitting on the stone, one guy sitting in the tomb (just chilling), and two more guys showed up after they were already inside. (By the time the last two guys showed up Mary must have been like “Let me guess Jesus isn’t dead, and he wants me to tell the disciples?” and then they were like:
“Yeah, pretty much. How did you know?” And then Mary just kinda rolled her eyes and pointed to the guy sitting in the tomb and the angel sitting on the rock. Then the angel and the dude just kinda waved and the two guys who showed up late were so embarrassed.)
 

Anyways that’s the story of the empty tomb. Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, Salome and “the other women” went to the tomb. An angel opened it up and told them Jesus wasn't dead. They went inside the tomb and a guy told them Jesus wasn’t dead. Then two more guys showed up and told them Jesus wasn’t dead. They all told Mary to tell the disciples the good news, and that’s just what she did!

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”
    John 20:1-2

    Wait a damn minute! How did Mary already forget what the angel, and the guys just told her! They told her three separate times for Christ sake!

Side by Side Genealogies In The Bible: From Adam to Jesus

 

 

 

For a little while now I've been looking for a side by side comparison of the various genealogies  in the Bible specifically the line from Adam through to Jesus. Unable to find one, I undertook to make it myself. Here is a link to the entire document here.  

An explanation of my formatting. From left to right is: Genesis, 1 Chronicles, Matthew, and Luke. I didn't include every name in the various genealogies only the direct line (brothers and cousins weren't relevant for this exercise). The yellow highlighted names (Adam, Abraham, David, and Joseph) were highlighted do to their significance in the Bible. They act as anchors for everything on the timeline. The green names are names that perfectly line up with the other text. The purple names are those which match the other text(s) but are in a different location. The red highlight is for names that are obvious contradictions with the other texts. Finally, the plane black is for names which do not have a direct correlation with the other genealogies presented. I used the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition for research, but I quote King James Version in the blog to avoid copyright issues. I retained the original spellings of the names as found in the NRSVU (any spelling variation is due to Luke, Matthew, and Chronicles spelling them differently).

Matthew 

Matthew cuts out five names found in Chronicles (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jehoiakim). The reason is found in Matthew 1:17

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. KJV

Matthew wanted to have this 14, 14, 14 parallel, and had to cut out names to make it happen. After Zerubbabel Matthew completely diverges from Chronicles and even ends his with less generations than Chronicles despite Chronicles being written some 250-400 years before Jesus was born. Just to be clear, Chronicles has more decedents of Zerubbabel listed in a smaller time frame. It seems this too was compressed for the sake of 14.

Matthew also added the name Uzziah (not sure why).

Luke

Luke adds Cainan and Admin. I'm assuming this was a clerical error. Luke diverges from Chronicles and Matthew after King David to follow David's other son Nathan (who is also listed in Chronicles). Possibly this was done to avoid the curse on Jeconiah

none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah. Jeremiah 22:30 KJV

Luke didn't have records of Nathan leading to Joseph, he just made it up. At least he had a more realistic amount of generations leading to Joseph. 

Joseph

In case it isn't obvious Joseph has a different father depending whether you're reading Matthew or Luke. Theologists will try to tell you one of the genealogies is Mary's and the other Joseph's. This ignores the fact that both books deliberately say Joseph.

 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 Matthew 1:16 KJV

 

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli 

Luke 3:23

Having one of the genealogies belong to Mary is a transparent attempt to paste over the glaring contradiction of Joseph having two different dads. It ignores the fact that both Matthew and Luke have other contradictions with the lineage given in the old testament.  

Who is Joseph's father? We don't know and neither did Luke or Matthew. Matthew was written 85 years after Jesus was born and Luke was written after that. Matthew and Luke didn't have access to Joseph's ancestors, but they wanted to show Jesus could be the rightful king of Israel. So, they used what they could from the Jewish Bible and made up the rest. It's just too bad Luke didn't copy Matthew. 

Shealtiel and Zerubbabel

The most fascinating thing about this whole genealogy is Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (highlighted in blue). They both show up in Chronicles (kind of), Matthew and Luke. Luke has them listed in a totally different lineage, and each version has Zerubbabel with a different kid. Chronicles was kind enough to list all of Zerubbabel's kids (Meshullam, Hananiah, and Shelomith). None of them match with the names given in Matthew and Luke. 

In Chronicles Shealtiel is Zerubbabel's uncle and Pedaiah is his father, but in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible (the version Matthew had access to) Shealtiel is listed as Zerubbabel's father (also in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Haggi)  Most likely the original version of Chronicles did list Shealtiel as Zerubbabel's father, but it got corrupted, at some point, while being copied. It's also fun to note how in each book Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are in a totally different generation.

I think this serves as a beautiful microcosm of the entire project. Names in different places with different sons, scribal errors leading to changes. The care and attention given to these two names is the same care and attention given to all of them. 

Why Does Any of This Matter

Most people will go their entire lives without paying much attention to the genealogies in the Bible, and those that do will most likely not have read them in parallel. Even then the formatting and punctuation make them difficult to compare. Only when written like this can we begin to appreciate the differences among them. 

But why does it really matter if they got a few names wrong? A majority of people in America live their lives as if the Bible is inerrant. People use these genealogies to (inaccurately) determine the age of the Earth and disregard more accurate scientific estimates. If you've made it this far and are a Christian, I implore you "Trust but Verify". Don't ever just take your pastor's word on something (his paycheck depends on your beliefs). Don't take my word for it, crack open your Bible and see for yourself. While you're at it take your time to verify what's in the Bible too.