Why is it that when the Christmas story is told whether in sermon or movie, the total Biblically correct story is never told. Is it because of inconsistencies in the facts presented? Luke (Luke 2), for example, has Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for a census at the time of Jesus birth, which occurred in a stable. He continues with the circumcision of Jesus on the 8th day, Mary’s purification and the sacrifice in Jerusalem required by Jewish law and then the return to Nazareth.
Matthew, on the other hand, makes no mention of Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth prior to Jesus’ birth, but leaves you to assume that they lived in Bethlehem at that time. The star announcing the birth of the “King of the Jews” and the wise men (Magi) are prominent features of the Matthew account. The wise men came to Bethlehem after visiting King Herod (Herod the Great whose official Roman title was King of the Jews), and followed the star to the house where the “young child” (not baby) was. Subsequently, Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt because Herod would try to kill the child by killing all the boys in Bethlehem who were 2 years and under (in according with the time he had learned from the Magi that the star appeared). Clearly the family was living in Bethlehem at that time. After the death of Herod the Great, the family returned to Israel, but went to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem because Herod’s son Archelaus was Tetrarch of Judea.
Movies portraying the events surrounding Jesus’ birth meld the two stories together usually by leaving out the Luke account of returning to Nazareth or by having the Magi visit the stable birthplace of Luke’s account. Neither of these scenarios fit the Biblical account. So what did happen? How can we meld the two together?
In the Luke account the family stayed in the Bethlehem area for at least 8 days. Being poor, Joseph who was a carpenter probably had to look for work during that time. Being an excellent carpenter (we presume), he may have been offered a job on a permanent basis at a wage superior to his former employment. In which case, he would take the family back to Nazareth, collect his belongings and move to Bethlehem. Thus when the Magi arrive they are living in a house as described by Matthew. Although there may be other Biblically correct scenarios which meld the two stories together, this is the one which makes most sense to me.
The difference in the two accounts of Jesus’ birth has caused another problem which is not so easily resolved: the year in which Jesus was born. Since history records the death of Herod the Great as March or April, 4 BC, Jesus must have been born before this date. If the events recorded by Matthew occurred near the end of Herod’s life, this would place the birth of Christ about 6 BC. However the Luke account places the census and birth of Jesus while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Historical records show that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 or 7 AD, after the banishment of Herod’s son Archelaus to Gaul (France) in 6 AD. This has been a problem for Bible scholars, most of whom accept the timing of Jesus birth according to the Matthew account. Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, stated that the census had been taken by Gaius Sentius Saturninus, legate of Syria from 9-6 BC rather than Quirinius.
In summary, the Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus birth can be harmonized, but a mistake has to be acknowledged in the Luke account in naming the wrong governor of Syria.
One other point, when is the last time you stood under a star? The attempts by some to determine what the star of Bethlehem was would seem to be futile if you consider that to guide the Magi it would have to have been a light that was close to earth. Otherwise there would be no way that the Magi could have followed it.
Care to comment? You can reach me at vrsandel@hotmail.com.
Vernon Sandel
