Was Jesus REALLY Born in Bethlehem?

Hey there... Jesus probably wasn't born in Bethlehem...
Yup it's that time of year when I ruin Christmas again. Critical scholars have known for a long time that Matthew and Luke's birth accounts are deliberately constructed to get Jesus of Nazareth to Bethlehem to fulfil messianic expectations. This explains some of the contradictions between the two nativity accounts in the Gospels. Don't believe me? Watch along and find out why...
Birthplace of Jesus
Correction: 5:35 - Moreso the slaughter of the firstborns by the Egyptians. The final plague was poetic retribution for that.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @tabletsandtemples
Patreon: / tabletsandtemples
+ Help me make more videos!
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/Lachl...
BTC Wallet: 1MJYqAi5VMfPH3qcJeeCCmhcnJyKwWgPwN
+ Stay in the loop:
Instagram: / tabletsandtemples
FB: / bibleunbox
Twitter: / tablets_temples
Subscribe: kzbin.info...
This channel is now known as Tablets and Temples, unpacking ancient history and religion. Formerly known as Bible Unboxed.
Sources:
For the view that Matthew and Luke wrote independently:
- Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Doubleday, 1993).
- J. Crossan, Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1973)
- JP Meier, Marginal Jew (1991) vol 1
For the view that Luke knew Matthew and changed it:
- Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q (2002), p.56
- Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem, (2004), p.131-32
For the view that Luke 1-2 was an independent narrative added to Luke:
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity p.327
B. Ehrman, ehrmanblog.org/did-luke-origi...
B. Ehrman, ehrmanblog.org/did-lukes-gosp...
Other sources:
- Eric Meyers, ed., Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures (Eisenbrauns, 1999)
- Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium By Bart D. Ehrman
- Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993
- Marcus Borg, 'The Meaning of the Birth Stories' in Marcus Borg, N T Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Harper One, 1999) page 179
- Vermes, Géza (2006-11-02). The Nativity: History and Legend. Penguin Books

[@wtpiep82]

Great video, have always had these questions and your visuals helped me better navigate

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Really glad it helped you out!

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Have a great Christmas everyone! Sorry for ruining the Christmas story... again.

[@ClayandPapyrus]

@@alfwok No that's the modern reboot. In the original story Jesus it was a slingshot not a BB gun.

[@joshuaboanerges3776]

Outstanding. Always enlightening

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Thanks for watching!

[@crissbishop6171]

He was born in Bethlehem but not the now Bethlehem, the other Bethlehem that was located in Galilee

[@InquisitiveBible]

The 3D map graphics are fantastic.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Haha thanks. Just channelling a bit of Johnny Harris, I need to include more maps.

[@RevolutionUtena]

I've also seen some people say that there's a theory that Luke interviewed Mary which is why so much of the early stuff seems to come from her point of view. Is that still a thought amongst scholars or was it never a thought and I just made that up in my own head or somewhere in between? And if it is a theory, how does that fit in with the birth narrative?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Hey there. Thanks for the question. In short, no most scholars do not think Luke interviewed Mary. Any historical Joseph and Mary would have likely been dead for a few decades before the author of Luke even began writing. There's a common misconception that the author of Luke says he interviewed eyewitnesses. If you read Luke 1 carefully, you will see the author never makes that claim, just that he investigated (which could mean anything).

[@audas]

Since its all entirely made up - who cares? Its like arguing over the Hobbit.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

The study of history is important. Understanding how and why communities formed religious texts the way they did can help us understand human nature in general.

[@jasondramsaroop1787]

How do youknow this

[@davidmathews9633]

@TabletsAndTemples How.do.you know Mary was dead?

[@danielmalinen6337]

There is also another problem which comes from outside the Bible. Jacob and Zoker, who were the grandchildren of Judas, the brother of Jesus, told Hegesippus of Nazareth that they were poor farmers and owned a piece of inherited land in Bethlehem before Emperor Dominatius began to persecute in Judea everyone who claimed to be from the family of David or the king of the Jews. But were they really related to Jesus and did they really own land in Bethlehem?

[@illness781]

Why wasn't jesus born in america couldn't he find a single virgin? Or 3 wise men

[@mustachemac5229]

I wonder if the reason why we see these differences on where Jesus was born, is because the authors had their own agendas and what they thought was significant to them. IDK 🤷‍♂️ Other than from a scholarly perspective do you think it's really necessary on where Jesus was actually born? Thanks for the video Lachlan! You have a wonderful Christmas.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Yes I agree, the authors of Matthew and Luke did certainly have their own agendas, but it seems fairly clear that some of that was a mix of sources they had access to as well as some literary creations of their own. I mean you're right, I don't think it's hugely important where Jesus was born, apart from Bethlehem; some scholars say Nazareth, a few even say Capernaum. The truth is we don't know. Thanks for all the support Mac! Merry Christmas.

[@KT37915A]

Slide 5:43 should be corrected. The exodus parallel with Matthew is the slaughter of the new born males in Exodus 1. Then the parallel for Jesus leaving egypt, it is the parallel of Moses leaving Egypt to Midian. Also, I thought that Mary and Joseph made the journey. It was likely that they traveled in a caravan of some kind trying to make the journey since Mary was about to give birth. Joseph probably got some kind of labor job where he worked for someone and they stayed in that home. Then, the Magi came with gifts and they basically took whatever they needed and fled to Egypt with the gifts of the Magi to fund their trip and stay in Egypt. After the time there, they obviously came back to Nazareth which was Mary's home town and stayed with her parents as peasants. Mary's parents probably died sometime before Mary claimed Jesus was out of his mind in Mark 3:21 since it has no reference to anyone other than his immediate family in the text. Mark 3:21 has to be one of the funniest lines in the whole bible. Every time I hear it, I chuckle a little.

[@allmightlionthunder5515]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus

[@pakimonsas]

Could Joseph had family in Bethlehem and that's why they stayed there after the presentation in the temple?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

People have hypothesised lots of ways to harmonize, but the problem is the text doesn't actually say that. The text has the family going to Nazareth after Bethlehem - any extended stay in Bethlehem in between is not envisioned by the author.

[@fireee5488]

luke 2:1; "taxing" not "census". cross reference: daniel 11:20-21, psa 78:2...

[@ClayandPapyrus]

Dear Lord Baby Jesus, or as our brothers in the South call you: 'Hey-suz'. We thank you so much for this bountiful harvest of Dominos, KFC, and the always delicious Taco Bell. -Ricky Bobby

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Eight Pound, Six Ounce, don't even know a word yet

[@johnwauters8576]

Less than 2 years old landed in Texas

[@mattgerald2460]

didn't mary and joseph have to pay their taxes in Bethlehem

[@TabletsAndTemples]

People paid taxes where they currently lived. If they lived in Nazareth as per Luke, then that's where they paid their taxes. If they lived in Bethlehem as per Matthew, then likewise. There was no requirement in the ancient world to go to ones ancestral home to pay taxes.

[@johnwauters8576]

Danang born city Providence

[@philiplong9129]

How about Northern Bethlehem?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

That wouldn't have fulfilled the rhetorical purpose of the authors having Jesus born in the town of David

[@prjazz12]

Actually if you look in Luke 2:6 it clearly states that Mary gave birth in Bethlehem, which is congruent with Matthew 2:1 which begins by saying. “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Sorry what is that in relation to? Luke having Jesus born in Bethlehem in 2:6 isn't one of the problems

[@brockkew2255]

It's saying they do not disagree with his place of birth you state one says they were living in Bethlehem but that is false it never says that. Only that she gave birth there and I'm pretty sure you already know that

[@brockkew2255]

The angel visits both Mary and Joseph in mathew it visits joseph as he wants to divorce Mary and in Luke he tells Mary she will give birth ro a son.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Ah I see what you're saying. The issue is that Matthew is clear that their home, where they were living, was Judea. After Egypt they try to return to Judea (after possibly years of living abroad) but out of fear of Archelaus do not. Then in Greek it says: καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην ⸀Ναζαρέτ (and he settled in a town called Nazareth). This is followed by explaining how it this move fulfilled some prophecy. It is evident in Matthew that this is the first time the family has lived in Galilee and they did so to fulfil an expectation.

[@brockkew2255]

@@TabletsAndTemples yes what's the point they lived in Nazareth when he was a young boy it says they returned to Israel from Egypt. But neither say they lived in Bethlehem which was your original point

[@fireee5488]

matt 2:11; the wise men came over a year after the events recorded in luke 2:1-38... when the wise men show up jesus is a "young child" not a "babe". he was in a "house" not in a "manger"

[@InquisitiveBible]

But in Luke, baby Jesus is taken to Jerusalem for dedication at the temple, and then they immediately return to Nazareth. They don't spend years in Bethlehem in that story.

[@allmightlionthunder5515]

(UK: /ˈθiːsjuːs/, US: /ˈθiːsiəs/; Greek: Θησεύς [tʰɛːsěu̯s])

[@ichigokurasaki100]

MultiTheory or parallel universe come to one to make a new world

[@Tamafusaa]

1st of Peter 1:25 says the word of God will remain forever. It is the truth.

[@Offical478Outdoors]

Joseph was Heli's son in law.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

There's no evidence of this, the Greek is very clear that Jacob is the son of Heli according to Luke.

[@wannabe_scholar82]

Hey interesting video but something keeping me from further studying the birth narratives are answers to these contradictions saying no author ever claims to focus on everything in Jesus's life and that the omission of other details from another author and saying that is a contradiction (such as the Egypt thing) is an argument from silence, thoughts? Here's an example of a video I was talking about: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKOodKZ6p8eJoaM

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Hey thanks! I would say it's not an argument from silence. The most significant aspect of the contradictions are not that the authors left out details the other included - it's that when you combine all the included details they don't align. It's very clear from Matthew that Joseph and Mary lived in Judea. It's equally as clear in Luke that they lived in Galilee. In Matthew, the family desires to return to Bethlehem but cannot, so they make a new home in Nazareth. Whereas in Luke, they return to Nazareth where they were already living. That in and of itself isn't reconcilable as a historical fact. These aren't omissions - both authors claim a different hometown for Mary and Joseph. Moreover, it's also not possible to reconcile the chronology of Luke's account (under Quirinius) with Matthew's (under herod) unless one is willing to admit Luke was wrong about something. This makes perfect sense if either: - Matthew and Luke had separate infancy traditions they worked from (or invented them) - Luke knew of, and corrected Matthew's account, - Or, Luke's infancy narrative is a late invention + addition to Luke (supported by the fact that the Gospel of Luke that Marcion had did not contain the infancy narrative). I also find some of the rebuttals made highly suspicious. One of the sources cited in the video (O'Brien's Misreading the Bible through western eyes) makes the claim that in Luke the family would have stayed in Bethlehem for up to two years. Except - even just within Luke, they don't. They go from Bethlehem to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth. Luke 2:39 - When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. Does O'Brien really expect us to believe that Luke was leaving room in that statement for the family to go back to Bethlehem to stay there for another two years? O'Brien claims Joseph packing up and leaving for 2 years was perfectly normal in the ancient world- yet he provides not a single primary or secondary source to back up his claim. It's simply an unfounded opinion. So yeah, haha that's my thoughts

[@wannabe_scholar82]

@@TabletsAndTemples damn that was an amazing and pretty concise response you wrote and it definitely makes sense, one thing ip does in another video is he tries to argue that Luke got the census right and it was actually josephus that got it wrong but I didn't find that convincing as I'd think scholars would pick up on something that big, so yeah thanks for the response and I'll look more into these topics!

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Ah yes, I've heard that claim before. The problem is still that Judea was not a Roman province in 6BCE - it was excluded from Roman censuses. Secondly, Luke's chronology is out of whack in other places. According to Luke Jesus starts his ministry at ~30 in 29CE (15th year of Tiberius), meaning he would have been born ~2BCE. We can allow some wiggle room - but Quirinius' career is pretty much accounted for in any such window. From 12BC to ~3BC he was fighting a military campaign in Galatia, and in around 5-3BCE he was likely Legate of Galatia. There's not really a window there for him to be governor of Syria. Saturninus 9 BC - 7 BC was the governor of Syria. Succeeded by Quintilus Varus from 6-4BCE when Herod died. So there isn't a window near the end of Herod's career where Herod is both alive and Quirinius could be governor.

[@justingoble4980]

@@TabletsAndTemples or, you know, Luke’s account is simply a condensed version of events. Luke mentions nothing of Egypt, so why bother including any of those details. I often find “biblical contradictions” a result of lazy thinking. For example, “Luke contradicts Matthew because he says the family immediately returned to Nazareth.” Instead, it’s entirely possible this is a condensed version of events, just like what we find in the rest of the gospel stories

[@TabletsAndTemples]

@@justingoble4980 Thanks for your comment! Sure, but the problem is there's no way to "uncondense" Luke's narrative in a way that would be compatible with Matthew (and the historical record). I will discuss attempts to harmonize the two next year sometime.

[@johnwauters8576]

Dad Airbase

[@RizkyYuniarMauludi]

Allah is the only God and Muhammad is messenger of Allah.. Jesus is prophet Isa.

[@vi11236]

😂nd yet u follow everything jewish

[@SHOTBYWAVO]

Muhammad came 700 years after Jesus and is a pedo and was a susidial person. Jesus never sin he was perfect and only god is perfect. Btw his name is yeshua

[@audas]

No. Jesus did not exist. And thinking he did - in absolutely any form - is beyond insane.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Even secular historians would acknowledge Jesus was a real apocalyptic preacher who lived in the early 1st Century. What we can know about this figure is a different question. But it's not really a question among historians as to whether Jesus existed; he did. While there's a small mythicist movement who claim he was entirely myth, that's not very widely accepted. Now that doesn't mean everything that was written about him happened - but there was a historical Jesus figure behind the New Testament writings.

[@audas]

@@TabletsAndTemples " But it's not really a question among historians as to whether Jesus existed; he did. " Absolute bollocks. There is literally ZERO evidence for his existence - nothing. In a period that is incredibly well documented during Roman rule a person of such absolutely MASSIVE impact as alleged at the time would have unparalleled levels of evidence documenting their existence - there is literally NOTHING until almost a century AFTER his alleged arrival. It is utterly risible to suggest to anyone that he was a "real person". No one with "MAGICAL POWERS " has ever existed - nor ever will. It is such an utterly absurd claim. No "legitimate" historian or even archaeologist would claim Jesus was "definitively" a real person - no chance. The only possibility is that they would perhaps defer to "he MIGHT have been real". Utterly insane ideas.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

@audas I didn't say he had magical powers. I all I said was historians agree there was a real preacher behind the figure of Jesus. I'm not really sure why you find it so hard to believe there was a historical figure who inspired some of the narratives. You don't have to believe that person had magic powers. If you're interested in secular historians of early Christianity who are non-religious, you can start with: - Maurice Casey - Bart Ehrman - Michael Grant

[@audas]

@@TabletsAndTemples You can try and claim all you like that a "real preacher" existed - there were thousands of them - millions. But absolutely none matching the description in the bible. And absolutely no descriptions of absolutely anything that happened in the bible. Again - the historical record from this period is very well understood and someone so incredibly famous would have been very well documented - they were not. I have read many many of the worlds leading academics on the issue who have written extensively on this - no one by the name of Jesus every existed matching the description. Its just a stone cold fact. There is literally no disputing it. There would be thousands and thousands of documents with vast array of accounts from innumerable sources if anything so astonishing occurred. But there is NOTHING. We have very well documented evidence of ancient Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, and Pharos along with Chinese society all well documented - the "Son of God" who was the most amazing person to ever live - should have SOMETHING. Not even in the CENSUS which you are discussing here makes reference in any concrete beyond doubt manner. The only thing which points even remotely to his existence is incredibly tenuous extrapolations and declensions of his name through a myriad of non-existent languages. Sorry - its not widely accepted - it is the exact opposite. The "writers" you mention do indeed try and make claim to his existence. Their work is ridiculous and completely not accepted by genuine historians. The only people pushing the "Jesus was real" agenda - are, wait for it - religious nutters.

[@audas]

@@TabletsAndTemples Just to be CLEAR here - there are only TWO mentions of Jesus outside of the Bible. The ONLY source of evidence anyone has for Jesus - is the Bible. Which was written decades after Jesus death. The only other TWO mentions of him are from people born many decades after his death, not who wrote later in life about him, but were BORN decades after. Tacitus and Josephus - and BOTH of those mentions are extremely brief and non-descript and HIGHLY questioned. Thats it. Thats the ENTIRE body of evidence for the story of the most powerful person to ever exist, the literal son of god. So did someone who was a preacher exist in Judea called Yeshua. Yes. There were literally thousands. Many of whom, HUNDREDS were preachers - very, very common past time at the time and very common name. Was one of those people the person described in the Bible - without doubt, absolutely not. Utterly insane. Jesus as described by Christians, in the Bible is a 100% fabrication.