Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/religionforbreakfast Watch Patrick Willems’ holiday special here!: nebula.tv/videos/patrickhwillems-star-wars-holiday-special?ref=religionforbreakfast
Remember what the Nativity scene looks like in Bethlehem this year. Remember who has slain more children than Herod could have ever dreamed of doing. From the River to the Sea, Palestine _will_ be free 🇵🇸
Whatever you are doing its not going to work. The Birth and Resurrection of Christ is done. Tetelestai. Bethlehem is the Eternal Birthplace of Christ Almighty because He fulfilled all the prophesies. ALL OF THEM. Including being born of the line of David in Bethlehem. Do a video on the end that Herod the "great" and what he and all his descendants met with before their death. And Joy to the world, our Lord is Born!
@@miastupid7911 Interesting description for made-up prophecies, unfulfilled prophecies, misunderstood prophecies ... I've probably forgotten some, but the record is extremely unimpressive.
@@KaiHenningsen Mr Henningsen the prophesies are all there in the Hebrew Bible written by The Hebrew Prophets and Kings and heads of the Hebrew religion throughout history. No one misunderstood any of it until now (or at least 600 years AC) and now it is being massively produced on your screen where we are witnessing everything is upside down including what it means to be human (which includes you, so beware of all the revisionism let loose from Pandora's box).
@@Solo-X Nazareth had been settled as far back as 2200BC. Just because it did not grow large enough to appear in the historical record until the *3rd century does not imply it does not exist. We have archeological proof that it did. The whole point of Nathaniel's "sick burn" was that is was a backwater.
Another element involved is the motivations of the writers. The details of Matthew's narrative suggest he is trying to appeal to a well-to-do Jewish-Christian audience, while Luke is writing to a poor Gentile-Christian audience. Both land on Bethlehem as a key element, but use it in different ways.
Except wouldn't highlight it being a likely historic reality? If they have different audiences and generally deviate (yes they do) then when they don't that should be viewed as good evidence.
@@tomasrocha6139 except Joe and Mary were faithful Jews so your argument can just be pushed back to them doing to fulfill prophecy and this was reported by the Jew and the Gentile Greek.
The explanation that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he had family or property there is pretty odd considering that a big part of the nativity story is that Jesus was born in a manger because they had nowhere to go in Bethlehem.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 There is no truth that you could use to convince these people. They are not here to learn but to despise. We also know that gifts of gold were given which could explain why they have property later in the year.
Even as a kid, I thought the whole census thing sounded suspicious. What census ever required people to go dozens or hundreds of miles away from their homes just to be counted? It's not only odd, it would be chaotic as hell. Not something the Romans would approve of, let alone require.
That makes sense, because the Romans are well known as being overly concerned about the well-being and ease of life of the residents of their rebellious client kingdoms at the far end of nowheresville.
Holy Cow! 5 years later, you're still making high-quality content in the same manner as you started! That's a true Christmas Miracle! Merry Christmas, Dr. Henry!
I forget the name of a book I read, but it was by a non-Christian historian who was trying very hard to accept the biblical narrative of Jesus. They were able to make plausible most of it, but when it came to Luke’s birth story they gave up. The dates are wrong. The census doesn’t make sense. And even if you accept all that, there’s no way a very pregnant Mary makes the journey to Bethlehem, donkey or no donkey.
It is designed to make sense, it isn't based on any historical facts. It's mythical story about a mythical prophet written be non-jewish people, more likely based in Rome.
@@willjapheth23789 Greek was the most widespread language of the time. Even if it wasn't their native tongue, people often spoke greek as a second language. similar to English in modern times - go to France, you will find French people who know english; go to Singapore or other Asian countries, you'll find people speaking english; India, english; Italy, english; etc.
Herod's Palace (Herodium) was near Bethlehem. Herod could see Bethlehem from his palace, and Bethlehem residents could see his palace in the distance. It's understandable that Joseph and Mary would not want to stay there long.
All these comments saying there were two Bethlehems are conveniently forgetting that both Matthew and Luke say that Bethlehem was in Judea, not Galilee. And also the fact that it's pretty clear the Galilee Bethlehem is the City of David. So the two Bethlehem theory does not work, and the stories are just contradictory.
Considering the fact that David was from the tribe of Judah, why would the Galilee Bethlehem be the City of David and not the one in Judea? (Judea is, after all, the restored "kingdom" of Judah after the exile)
Just watched this over on Nebula but wanted to jump over here and say how much I enjoyed your work on this topic! I’m a Christian minister. I found your coverage of the topic excellent! You presented your conclusion while also providing alternative views including their strengths and weaknesses. Great job! Thank you!!
@user-mc8bb6zo3quser-mc8: Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. . Physical Israel was cut off as a favored nation when they put God on the cross and cried for Barabbas instead. If any Israelites are saved, it must be in the same way as the Gentiles are - to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and do as he says. . God bless as you believe in and follow our Creator - Jesus Christ, the Son of God..
Bruh, is it really “disbelieving in the Holy Spirit” to say “good job using that god-given intellect & determination to track down numerous disparate sources surrounding the historical Jesus beyond what is written at face value in the scriptures; I learned something new today, and will continue to study about the early days of Jesus, and share this knowledge with my secular colleagues” ?
This is one of the biggest reasons Im not a mythicist. If the whole character of Jesus was made up then it makes sense that he would've simply been from Bethlehem rather than having some cleary contrived explination for why he was technically born in Bethlehem even though everyone knew he was from Nazareth. I think Jesus was a real guy that people widely knew was from Nazareth, hence the Bethlehem natavity story.
@@LoudWaffle - When the major "proof" for THE Yeshu' as an historical figure are books inserted into the Bible written by anonymous Greeks well after the supposed death of the man, some of which draw from a like unnamed source ("Q") and all end up with conflicts over quite a few details, then I would say that it is YOU that is jumping through hoops.
@@MossyMozart That conflicts are the point, the narrative couldn't be too perfect or else it would be (possibly) an actual forgery. We have to remember that historiography isn't meant to be perfect, therefore combining many of the works to form a single smooth narrative is impossible.
The thing is Matthew 2 22 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene. That a prophecy requiring Jesus to be from Nazareth at lest for the writer of Matthew and as such the other Gospel writers likely knew of the same prophecy. Are we sure that Nazarene actually meant from Nazareth and not some variant of Nazirite/Nazarite? After all the messiah being a Nazarite makes way more sense to find in a prophecy.
This view stems from a lack of knowledge about ancient Jewish culture. It wasn’t weird for people from Galilee to travel and stay (probably with relatives) near Jerusalem for weeks or even months in order to observe mandatory holy days like Passover, Shavuot, and Succoth. If Jesus was born during any of these holiday pilgrimages (a good time to do a census and tax if you’re Rome) it would have been considered normal. But it wouldn’t be considered his hometown. They lived in Nazareth, and so that’s where he was from.
@@xunqianbaidu6917this assumes that Rome, during that year, in the Province of Judea, did exactly according to the Roman parameter of law. People forget that things in real life are unpredictable, especially when it comes to local government.
That's why He was called Jesus the Nazarene, but it doesn't change the fact that He also actually born into this world in Bethlehem. Thus, He fulfilled two prophecies at the same time.
@@matheusmotta1132But if it was in the province of Judea, it must have occurred after the death of Harod. Before that time, it was a client-kingdom of Rome, in which the Roman tax laws were irrelevant. The Romans took tribute from client-kings, they did not tax the people directly.
@@LoudWaffle not fully out of the realm of possibilities. Have you ever heard of anchor babies? There are many reasons why women travel to give birth somewhere. Some women give birth in isolated cabins for "peace of mind", women cross borders and rivers so the child has citizenship of a specific country etc.
@@rwofshjs But they already were citizens of Roman Palestine, travelling to another region within the territory wouldn't make sense for an "anchor baby." Nor would it work like that if they were trying to move to Judea... giving birth there doesn't give them land or a home, and evidently they returned to Gallilee anyways. As for isolated cabins and whatnot for peace of mind, they gave birth in an animal barn in a fairly large city (for the time) - nevermind the ~90 mile hike while she was in late term.
@@tonyjesus1657No, but it stretches credibility. Much more likely that it would suggest Joseph still had connections and probably relations in Bethlehem.
Tony's answer is possibly correct, but I'll give another. I am a country boy. My family farm is five miles away from a small town, but we say that we are "from" that small town. It could be that Joseph owned property (with or without a house or other structure) a couple of miles outside of Bethlehem. I don't know if you have kids, but sometimes, when it is time, it is TIME. It could very easily be that they thought they could make it to his property, but it was a mile or so away when it was time. It could be that they just didn't quite make it to their destination when Mary gave birth. Also, regarding owning land, there are many families that own land in farming areas, but move away for various reasons. Structures or improvements decay and fall into disrepair. The family owns the land but there is no longer anything standing on that land.
"Journal fragment 23/71224 dated March 3, 2023 clearly demonstrates that early 21st Century Americans worshipped frequently at a temple known as Chipotle. It's not clear, but evidence suggests that Chipotle was an ancient Meso-American deity primarily associated with salt."
As always, your content is superb. I appreciate that whilst you present the scholarly consensus, that you also present counter arguments from other scholars. To often people like to pretend the scholarly census is unanimous and that any alternative views are just that if Bible thumping layman. Merry Christmas RFB !
Census according to ancestral hometowns still occur in countries like Lebanon. This just seems weird to other countries, but over here it's been the normm
Common in Mexico too. My brother had to get his passport in central Mexico because the state his parents are from there even tho he lives up north in the border. U must understand that this ytuber is kinda bias towards Christianity
There are some basic questions that were overlooked. The city of Nazareth is never mentioned in the entire Old Testament. The only reason it became thought of as the place of birth of the Messiah was due to Matthew 2:23 where it says, "as it was said through the prophet he would be called a Nazarene". There is no prophecy like that in any part of the Old Testament nor is any prophet mentioned. One idea is that it was misreading of the word Nazir which is a person who takes it upon himself to devote his life to God by not drinking or cutting his hair (like Samson). The other issue is Bethlehem. Surely it was the birth place of David. However, the term "city of David" always referred to Jerusalem 2 Sam 5:7, 5:9, 6:10, 6:16. In fact in 1 Kings 2:10 it says David was buried in the city of David and we know he wasn't buried in Bethlehem. In modern times, the city of Bethlehem was almost 100% Christian until the Palestinian Authority was given dominion over it. It is now less than 20% Christian.
Or since Matthew was written 30-40 years after Jesus’ life, it was just a newly-invented “prophecy” to add to the narrative surrounding the new Jesus-centered religion.
Matthew claims fulfillment of a prophecy that was never made- Matthew 2:23 "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene." Jesus is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament nor was he born of a virgin as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. Matthew 26:64 "I say to all of you; from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the“Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” clouds of heaven.” Matthew claims God is three: "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". (Matthew 28:19) God states that he is one: "The LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) Matthew claims 14 generations from David to Jesus. 1st and 2nd Kings states there were 20 generations. Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom". (Matthew 16:28)
@@dulls8475 _"Fulfilled in the ascension."_ You know none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus, right? The Gospels were all written anonymously after 70 AD after the prophesies expired unfulfilled to match Jewish expectations of the messiah.
@@dulls8475 _"Please read it instead of cut and pasting others ideas."_ LOL from someone who literally worships propitiatory human sacrifice based solely on a fictional character because mommy told you to.
Ok so I read up on the Tacitus Annals 6.41 passage cited by Sabine Huebner. Unless I am very much mistaken it seems she misunderstood what it said. It's not talking about Rome forcing a client state to conduct a census it is about Rome forcing local tribes to submit to a census AFTER Rome had already annexed the territory. The tribe from Annals 6.41 were from Cappadocia and had fled to Cilicia Tracheia (a client kingdom) in 36 AD (according to my translation) to avoid a census in Cappadocia but according to Tacitus Cappadocia was annexed in 17 AD (Annals 2.42, 2.56) so her example doesn't actually show that the Romans did stuff like that. I think I understand where the confusion took place though. The battle against the tribe took place in a client kingdom but the tribe was fleeing a census in an annexed province. So the the census itself was not done in the client kingdom.
@@sticlavoda5632 I have none. I'm not an expert. I was just reading translations of Annals by Tacitus. I should note that I've since learned that it's definitely possible my interpretation is wrong lol. Because there were apparently two Archelaus's and Tacitus could be referring to Archelaus II (the son) rather than Archelaus of Cappadocia however the text says "Archelaus of Cappadocia" so I'm not sure atm.
Ok let's assume I am incorrect and it was actually referring to Archelaus II (who was alive at the time) and not Archelaus of Cappadocia (despite literally saying that). All the text says is that the tribe was "being compelled, after our [Roman] fashion, to carry out a property census and submit to tribute" it doesn't say they had to submit tribute to Rome it just says "submit to tribute" so presumably in this scenario the tribe would be from Cilicia and not Cappadocia so it would be the king not Rome they were submitting tribute to. So this wouldn't be evidence of the Romans doing a census in a client kingdom but evidence that client kingdoms could conduct Roman style censuses on their own. So even under that scenario it wouldn't be evidence for the Luke nativity story (since that one was clearly ordered by the Romans in the story).
What always confuses me is that Matthew and Luke went to so much trouble to establish the line of descent from David to Joseph but then Joseph isn’t Jesus’ father. I’m sure I’m projecting modern assumptions but still
@@MossyMozart Did you know that sometimes in a linage people skip the less important people...happens all the time including today. Dont you think that both those gospel writers could have got together to make their words match yet did not. Nor was it corrected later because I suspect people knew more than us about the circumstances of how linages were compiled and thus had no problem with it.
But I suspect that Jesus was legally Joseph's son. Think about it in a modern context, a woman goes to register her childs birth. The clerk would ask "fathers name?" If the woman says "God, I was impregnated by a holy vision", the clerk is just going to roll their eyes and say "who is your boyfriend over there" and write his name down as the father.
I think the travel-to-Bethlehem-for-census story is more plausible than you're making out here. A component everyone seems to have missed out is the Jewish attitude towards ancestral land. If Joseph was indeed a direct descendant of David, then he would've absolutely considered himself a Bethlehemite, despite living in Nazareth. It sounds like Nazareth at the time didn't have very high status anyway, so I can well imagine that if there was an important census coming up, he would've wanted to be registered in Bethlehem, along with his wife and son-to-be. And making the journey wouldn't have been that big a deal, either. This was the Temple era, Jews were frequently traveling to Jerusalem from all over for the three Pilgrimage festivals. The roads were well-kept, with plenty of inns along the way, and they would've made that journey a few times before, it was a familiar route. And Bethlehem is literally a two-hour walk from Jerusalem, so it was hardly even a detour.
*If Joseph was indeed a direct descendant of David* Why does that matter? He wasn't Jesus' father. *And making the journey wouldn't have been that big a deal, either* It would to a woman nearly 9 months pregnant. Logic and commonsense says a woman that close to birth would be left at home.
Why would Joseph care how a Roman figurehead registered his family? Would it insult his pride for a gang of foreign conquerors to think he was born in Nazareth? The point of the census is to find out *who lives where* so they can *come back and collect taxes." They would not ask "Where does your family origin story begin? Who is your earliest mythohistorical ancestor?" They would ask "Where is your house?"!
@@druidriley3163 Who said she gave birth immediately after they arrived? Luke says she gave birth while they were there, she could have been in a less advanced stage of pregnancy when they went.
I'm surprised you give any credence to the idea that Josephus was a source of the writer of gLuke. It's kind of a fringe view based on some very weak strands that can easily be explained by just common knowledge. Mason's argument is more conjectural than the arguments you dismiss from Sabine.
The London papyrus might not prove the story of Luke, but it does suggest that ancient readers would have found the idea of traveling for a census plausible: such decrees were known to be issued in the Roman Empire.
For some workers working in another town for a limited time, like masons or peddlers, why not. But Mary would still be in Bethlehem or, at least, their home and family would be there. Going to a city where your grand, grand, grand … parents lived 1000 years ago, no way. Ancient texts are full of myths and magic and nobody really cared. Science and facts were not as important as today in antiquity.
It also depends on how the gospels are read. One way of reading Luke is that "everyone had to return to their own hometown/place of residence" for the census of Emperor Augustus (for registration, not taxation) which would mean that even though the Gospel says that Joseph was with Mary in Nazareth, Joseph still lived in Bethlehem and therefore had to return to where his home was. However, there is also strong support for the fact that the Bethlehem story was created for a religious purpose, because several texts of the Hebrew Bible say that the prophet and the Messiah can only be born in the City of David and this way of reading would mean that it is not true.
Mathew explained why Nazareth was considered Jesus' home town in chapter 3. Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth. Even today, we consider the town wr grew in ad our home town and not necessarily where we were born
Cool, if you watched the first 5 minutes of the video you would hear him say this exact thing. If he was just born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth, why wouldn't the author of Luke just say that? Why the weird implausible census story?
Yeah, I'd say most scholars say that is a literary invention. Josephus really didn't like Herod, so if it really did happen, it'd be super odd that Josephus would leave that out.
Jimmy Akin suggested a variant of Huebner’s hypothesis that seems plausible. Joseph may have had familial roots and property in Bethlehem but was working as a carpenter in Nazareth at the time of the census. He thus returned to Bethlehem to satisfy the census , but fled to Egypt avoid Herod. Upon returning he may have chosen to settle the family back in Nazareth where he had work.
Contrary to a peasant upbringing presupposition, it’s likely that Joseph as a “tekton” was a skilled craftsman who ran a vineyard & farm as the area would have been a prime area for doing so. Joseph’s descendants, according to the 2nd century historian Hegesippus, had a number of acres (likely inherited) in a prime viticultural area that caught the attention of the late 1st century Emperor Tragan. See also the 2021 article by the Anglican theologian Ian Paul, “Was Jesus born into a ‘poor’ family?” It contains additional arguments on why Jesus may not have grown up in a peasant family.
@@Joso997rejecting peasant theology also challenges the narrative that Joseph forced pregnant Mary to walk from Nazareth to Bethlehem. He could have made cushions for riding a donkey, or have even made a cart, for her traveling comfort.
@@Joso997I wonder how many skilled craftsmen you know... My father was a brilliant craftsman but utterly failed at making it a business. Those are different skillsets.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 We know Jesus was born poor since at the day of circumcision, Mary and Joseph brought 2 doves instead of a lamb as sacrifice which the Torah permitted for poor families.
Really interesting to see the scholarly take on the nativity. Also, if Herod truly had killed all the boys two and under, you would think there would be at least some mention of such a tragedy in the historical record.
Ah yes, the historical record which has less mentions of the emperor at the time of Jesus, vs mentions of Jesus. Why do you think they’d make mention of atrocities which are common place, let alone why do you think those would survive antiquity, when even the original gospels are not preserved in full (as in the very first copy written), if we do not have the first copies of the gospel, what makes you think people would preserve such an atrocity? Last I checked people weren’t known for saving information in regards to wickedness.
@@chris93703 Herod of the historical, and Jewish religious record, wasn't cruel though. His line is considered the last Jewish monarchy by some. Him expanding the temple did a lot for his image, but not enough for them to get rid of massacres like that.
I think it is reasonable to assume that Mathew and Luke were conflating events that happened before their time as they did not have precise details, it happens all the time that you assume that certain events were contemporaneous that in fact turn out not to have been. It is like the Mandela effect in Biblical times.
This is my take. The authors were codifing what they discovered about Jesus and not being historians they got some details wrong. Luke is not stayed to be a Judean Jew but a Roman physician. A Gentile wouldn't know all the history even most Romans wouldn't know history from all corners of the Empire.
It always interested that Joseph's lineage to David is mentioned. Shouldn't have made any difference as according to the NT Joseph wasn't biologically related to Jesus. So, his birth lineage is a "non-sequitur". The only thing of importance would be the lineage of Mary (and of course the Holy Spirit but that is a absurdity.
Isn't it equally plausible that the authors of Matthew and Luke 1-2 believed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but did not necessarily have a complete explanation for why Jesus would have been born there yet grew up in Galilee? This would mean that it may not have been a great theological motivation so much as an attempt to explain something that was viewed as a fact by those authors. I think the author of Luke 1-2 was trying to piece historical events together but without specificity of dates. (I don't think the author of Luke 1-2 is the author of the rest of Luke, by the way)
I think that is what is happening in the apologetics narrative. The authors believe Jesus is the Messiah even without hearing of the birth in Bethlehem. They are convinced he is the Messiah from other lines of evidence. The scriptures, meanwhile, say the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Therefore, as a result of believing Jesus is the Messiah, the authors also believe that he must have been born in Bethlehem. Filling in the details of how it exactly happened isn't that important. Clearly it was the case that non-Christian jews were criticizing Christians by not having any evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and such criticism was even recorded in the NT. What's the harm in giving one possible explanation (from the author's perspective) of how it happened since they already "know" it to be true as the prophecies said it would happen and Jesus was clearly the Messiah from other lines of evidence?
@@baxterwilliams2170 Agreed! And it's a good example of how ancient thinking worked in general. This kind of deductive reasoning is rampant across the classical period, a product of the belief that reason can lead to the correct answer even without evidence, because reason is itself evidence. I do think the author of Luke 1-2 is making a true attempt to piece together the history available to him, though, whereas Matthew is just presenting a tradition without any attempt to connect it to history.
What’s important to include, which was left out, is the very real possibility that either of Joesph or Mary’s relatives could have been living in Bethlehem. It was common practice to have “two” homes, a familial home and a current residence elsewhere. Joesph did not have to be rich; he simply needed family living elsewhere.
@@varana it’s literally common sense. It’s a practice many societies have done and continue to do, like today. It’s also ridiculous to assume Joseph never had relatives elsewhere.
@@dustinwilson3618 Yes but he _wasn't_ there. That's the whole point. The video made a case that going to another town could make sense if he owned some property there, but otherwose going to your relatives home doesn't. You don't have to pay taxes for all towns where soke of your relatives live :D
And Muslims have already destroyed Christian and Jewish structures. Al Aqsa is built ONTOP of the second temple ruins because muslims wanted to insult Jews living in the region. It’s nothing new to say war destroys relics.
@@winter_3407 I need you to realise that most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of historical Palestine that converted to Islam. So if you have an issue with the religion that's youe problem but the people themselves are not foreign. Unkind regards
This is a reflection of the discussion I had just last year while in Israel. There was much debate but in the end, the birth narrative of Jesus just does not make sense from several perspectives. It is my belief that Jesus was born in the house of Elizabeth. She was already six months pregnant with John the Baptizer when Mary arrived. The Gospel of Luke doesn't say why she made the journey but it is plausible that she went there to assist in the birth of John and have what many would have believed was an illegitimate child. The fact that she was pregnant without being "known" by Joseph would have been a cause for her to be shunned by the rest of the Jewish community and perhaps why he was treated so negatively by the people of Nazareth.
If the gospel writers can't get these simple historical facts correct, why do people trust them to announce the most important things about God and salvation and all these other things. Either God for some reason discloses things in a sloppy way, or this is all man-made
My guess is that whoever modified the original Luke and Matthew version after they were initially written did so wanting to appeal the Jesus story to two different groups of potential converts, one poor and agrarian and the other well to do and urban.
I read a lot of the apocryphal books, trying to read all that we have just out of an interest in the development of Christianity and to see what other perspectives people had back then and I started to notice what you're talking about at the end. There are a lot of scenes and images and whatever that just are in modern Christian ideas of Jesus that aren't in the canonical bible but are in some previously popular apocryphal text. So even though most of it hasn't been widely read for hundreds and hundreds of years it still does influence us.
There are two Bethlehems in Israel. One is in Judea another in Galilee not far from Nazareth. Constantine's mother wanted to build a church at the place of the birth of Jesus. She was confronted by a conflict for some said Bethlehem Galilee and others said Bethlehem Judea so she built churches in both places. Both churches where destroyed however the one in Judea was rebuilt and the ruins on the one in Galilee has been found. It makes no sense to suggest Bethlehem Judea being the place of Jesus birth being that it is 90 some miles from Nazareth, also they have found no Herodian artifacts in Bethlehem Judea and many in Bethlehem Galilee.
Luke mentions that it was the first census of Quirinius but he isn't known to have done any other census much less of the entire Roman empire However Luke was written in greek meaning "first" was "protos" and could also easily mean before Quirinius I think there was such a census such as this held in 8 BC that took a few years to complete The census of Quirinius was significant because it caused the Judean revolt which could line up with the story about the killing of 2 year olds in the Bible, although I think that would make Jesus 4 at the time unless I messed up somewhere
Correction: Herod presumably died in either 4 BC or 1 BC and was the one allegedly carrying out the baby killing so that 8 BC census might be more likely
It has been suggested that Luke got Governor Quirinius confused with Quinctilius (he of the battle of Teutberg) who would more likely have been governor at that time.
Highly unlikely. There's no evidence that there was a local or worldwide census conducted in the time of Varus. I also don't understand how someone could conflate two names as different as Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and Publius Quinctilius Varus. It's a glaring historical error. No way round that.
Did Abraham exist? Probably not. Did Moses exist? Probably not. Did David exist? Probably not. Was there a big Israeli empire under a guy named Solomon? Probably not.
I wonder if the King Herod mentioned in Luke was actually one the sons also named Herod. Seems easy to mix them up. That still wouldn't line up Luke with Matthew of course, just make him slightly more internally consistent.
Yea, it could have been his son Herod...but he was removed before Quirinius became governor of Syria so there was never any overlap between he and Quirinus. The author of Luke, writing almost a century after the birth of Jesus, just got some facts wrong.
@@stevearmstrong6758 ... what? Yes there is. Herod Antipas ruled until 39 CE. He remained tetrarch for his whole life, unlike his brother who was removed for being incompetent and triggering the said census.
@@TacticusPrime Herod Archelaus was removed…but I see your point, two of his sons were referred to as Herod of something and the third is sometimes referred to as Herod Phillip II today. Plenty of options for confusing the names - especially when writing 80-90 years after the fact and no Google!
Two independent sources is still two independent sources. Maybe they got some details wrong and made up stuff for symbolic reasons, but they're still evidence. All we can say is that there's a few reasons to doubt, but it's inconclusive either way.
Excellent video! I would just add that Sabine Huebner says that Quirinius may have actually been a lower official under the reign of a previous governor but this directly contradicts what the gospel of Luke says! It specifically says that Quirinius was governor of Syria. "This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Luke 2:2 NRSVUE It also says "when" Quirinius was governor of Syria not that it was just done by him so she can't use that argument either.
Her point was that the Greek word in the phrase you included, hēgemoneuontos, commonly translated as governor, was used flexibly at the time for any higher officials including censors and procurators. I'm not convinced by her argument but that's part of the reasoning for her theory.
A major problem i have with people throwing shade on Luke census date is the "super smart skeptic" starts from a presupposition that the gospel is wrong and the other dates are accurate. Considering the only source we got to start dating these things is Josephus, who was born in the 30s CE and is writing at the turn of the 2nd century it's more likely hes the one conflating dates. We actually know for a fact Josephus screws up dates. Also if its so proposterious for this local census to have taken place this would have been an ancient polemic, not just something that came up in modernity.... VERY VERY WEAK attempt to discredit the gospels.
It's not just the date, it's the motivations to do a census too, as well as the requirements of the census. Saying it's very very weak doesn't make it true, it just makes it look more like you are very very coping.
@@willjapheth23789 sounds like you're the one coping. It is weak evidence, Luke is more contemporary than Josephus who is writing at the end of his life about things from before he was born... And again he has dating errors, so to assume that the gospels are wrong because it doesn't fit your agenda is bias atheist coping..
@the1allahprays2 my dude, I don't care if he was born in Bethlehem or not, and the video host was clear that much of this is about probability. As in, he is open to sources being wrong. For you to acknowledge that presuming sources are true can be problematic all the while clearly presuming the gospels are accurate as evidenced by you claiming a multifaceted criticism of the census narrative "very very weak". Sounds like you have way more confidence in a single 2000 year old source than the video host. You didn't even acknowledge the census motivation and requirements issue, which makes me think you don't think that argument is "very very weak". Proverb of the day 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5).
@@willjapheth23789It seems to me that if literally every near-contemporary person who reported that a person was born in a particular place agreed on what that place was, we should conclude that the person was probably born in that place.
@jdotoz Sure, except that includes just 2 people with different narratives and have a solid reason to say it was Bethlehem without knowing it was. But it's still possible the narratives could be wrong, and Bethlehem still correct. I could see something like Matthew's account happening, more than I could see Luke's account, atleast the census part, which was the part the commenter commented on, the part the video spent much of its time on, and part I did not find the argument for to be 'very very weak'.
Jesus didn’t die on the cross. He send his brother Isukiri to die in his place while Jesus hung out in Japan. This is well documented on the internet, so probably must be true.
@@crazyviking24Actually at the time he might have been a governor in Asia minor which is why he was helping put down a revolt. He was then later appointed as governor of Syria
@@henrimourant9855 He was governor in Asia Minor in 14bc when he had to fight off a group of desert raiders called the Mamaridae, and legate of Galatia in 5-3bc when putting down a revolt.
On one small detail, I'd also suggest that there is no reason that Luke would feel that he needed to prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, given that he was writing to *Gentiles.* They wouldn't have any idea of the prophecy about Bethlehem. Luke brings it up, and then describes why Jesus fulfills the prophecy. But out of the four gospel writers, he has the least reason to even *mention* the prophecy, because the guy he's writing to is not likely to be aware of it and not likely to care about it.
Luke reports what he could find about Jesus. He was probably not the one making things up and was simply reporting the traditions of his current of Christianity.
I've always wondered about this, and it bothered me because I'm not a historian and can't be sure how this particular custom worked, but jesus is usually referred to as "jesus of nazareth". To me it stands to reason that the name you're called by should be your place of birth, otherwise a person's name would change every time they relocated. For instance, I was born in Salisbury. If without a surname I was simply called Daniel of Salisbury, and I later moved to Glenelg, I would expect that I'd still be referred to as Daniel of Salisbury even when living in Glenelg, since that's where I was born and came from. For the name to change every time I relocate somewhere new, it makes it impossible to determine if I am the same person - I'd be receiving a completely new identity in each new town I lived.
Yes, but as someone who was born in a US State where I lived all of a year and a half of my life, all before memories formed, I can definitely attest that you don't relate to the place you were born, you relate to the place you grew up.
No, people who moved when they were very young rarely identify with their place of birth but rather the place they spent the most time in their formative years. When pressed, a lot of people will say “I was born in X, but I grew up in Y, so I tell people I’m from Y.”
These are valid points. Still, we can't really be 100% certain how this custom was treated 2000+ years ago. By which I mean, we cant be sure since it essentially operated like a surname, and we don't do that anymore, we just carry a family name instead of where you hailed from, so to speak. While you may refer to yourself as being from the place you grew up rather than where you were born, it's not a means of identification like it was back then. I'm not sure if there are any historically reliable documents that explain the 'rules' of how that custom worked, so if anyone knows of such a text, I'm interested to hear about it. But I do take your points.
@@earlysda David was born in Bethlehem, which is probably the name of the firstborn son of Ephraim, in Galilee of Israel. Those who are anti-Christ, were Nazis, that could be the reason for the re-location of the birth of Christ.
Where does it say that Joseph was a permanent resident of Nazareth. Many scholars believe Josephus dates of the census are wrong Why would he make up a need to go to Bethlehem for a census, if he made it up he could have used a million other reasons.
I had to laugh out loud with that segway into Star Wars at the end ... because suddenly I could imagine a set of Gospels (Sequels) that had been produced without having had an overarching story worked-out at first, resulting in a lot of retconning as they go😄 with a final chapter starting out with "Somehow Jesus had returned".
> a final chapter starting out with "Somehow Jesus had returned" So...Revelation then. 😆 Gotta say, I was also very impressed by Dr. Henry's double segue first into Star Wars and then into Nebula, lol.
@@MossyMozart Wont that be Anakin? Since he was the one who in the end sacrificed himself for the good? and was the chosen one? Hell his mother 'conceived' him without a father too.
One Israeli archeologist proposed that Jesus was actually born in another Bethlehem instead of the well-known one south of Jerusalem. That site is known as the Bethlehem of Galilee and is a much closer proximity to Nazareth which is the hometown of Jesus. It is currently a Jewish settlement known as a moshav.
RUclips counter-apologist Paulogia is apparently the guy who came up with the whole idea of Star Wars “canon” when he was working for Lucasfilm, back in the day. He based the different levels of canon in the Star Wars expanded universe on how biblical canon is divided up.
Supposedly, the Greek of Luke 2:2 is sufficiently vague that it can be read "the census before Quirinius was governor..." rather than "the first census when Quirinius was governor." This would work well with the political chaos that followed Herod's demise: Archelaus was despised by the Judeans; Augustus had come to distrust Herod (especially his choice of heirs); per Josephus, Rome sent men to determine Herod's actual wealth and its source. A census of sorts could well have been taken at this time if Augustus was contemplating the annexation of Judea before being convinced to accept Herod's will.
Many thanks for your profound presentation! I think scholars should consider three more clues: According to the gospel of Luke, Mary had a relative from the priestly descendants of Aaron (Elisabeth) who was married to a priest of the Abija-line (Zacharias), both living in the mountains of Judea. Furthermore, Joseph is reported to have been a „tektoon“ (a skilled building worker). Finally, the Galilean city Sepphoris has been destroyed in 4 BCE after an uprising and soon after been rebuild to be the new Galilean capital for Herodes Antipas. Due to high demand, probably a highly skilled Joseph has been recruited for this construction project from far away. To avoid living in the hellenistic city, he lived 8 km away in Jewish Nazaret - perhaps first provisionally and later permanently. Possibly, Joseph and Mary were from upper class religious families in Judea and went for an attractive laboral opportunity to Sepphoris/Nazaret. Despite many points of the birth stories first may appear to be contradictory, some of these doubts are not for sure! But if the couple really had its upper class families and possessions in Judea: Why did they stay in a stable when Jesus was born? Maybe their families and their neighbourhood still banished them for regarding Jesus to be an illegitimate child. Even later, enemies of Jesus maliciously blamed him to have been begotten from fornification.
@proculusjulius7035 I absolutely agree. It neither supports a strict apologetic nor a "surely complete fiction" position - any of both or something in between is possible.
When Mary and Joseph went to the temple to be purified after Jesus's birth they brought two turtle doves or two young pigeons (Luke doesn't specify which one), which per Exodus and Leviticus is the sacrifice to offer if you can't afford a lamb, so it doesn't appear that Joseph was particularly wealthy.
11:27 Joseph’s family being potential landlords was not the take I was expecting but it does recall that one parable about the tenants and the vineyard
Sounds like the Matthew story is more plausible than Luke's. Moving to avoid an oppressor makes alot of sense, a weird census doesn't, though both stories are dripping with convenient references to the Hebrew Bible, which is poetic, but could easily be made up too.
Neither the genealogy in Matthew nor the one in Luke are correct: Messiah was of Ephraim. Consider that if Herod had known the genealogy, He would have eradicated Christ and not asked where He could be found.
When Jesus was 8 days old they took him to the temple in jerusalem for his circumcision and they offered the low end birds for the poor people offering, so if he was a land owner in Bethlehem also he was strapped for cash.
This is really interesting and well set-out as usual. A couple of potential quibbles: I'm not sure exactly how tribal Biblical Jewish society was, but clearly lineage was still a very big issue for them. On that basis, it might not be at all implausible that Joseph would return to Bethlehem if that were the place of his ancestors. Also, do we have any evidence that the 45th (I think that was the number) generation of ancestor was the last to live there? Is it impossible that he had more recent ancestors from the area? Secondly, we seem to assume that the sole reason for a census is taxation. What if the Romans were in fact trying to place people in a tribal, or lineage, framework for some reason? For me, the biggest ground to disbelieve the details of the Nativity is that it posits a really curious coincidence. That some child had a very peculiar birth, with (depending on the version) illegitimacy but not shunning, slaughter of innocents but lucky escape, travel while heavily pregnant, maji and or donkeys and shepherds, shooting stars, the works, then disappeared for years, then became a star preacher years later. If I were mythologising my favourite preacher after his death, I might want to embroider his origins. Thus the move from "his Dad traced his heritage to Bethlehem" to "he was born in Bethlehem."
You're mostly right, at least on this line of thinking. There's no way to reconcile both versions, and the shepherd version def. doesn't take place in Dec. It's all a work of propoganda--like every old world story, they need to establish divinity in line with traditions that their audience would accept. So they take motifs that already exist, one links jesus to David (elite jews?) and the other adopts Moses story (which follows common Mesopotamian messianic template).
The earlier gospel, Mark, was written circa 40 years after Jesus death and there’s no mention of Jesus’s birth or anything about his life before his ministry. Seems like the necessity of providing Jesus with a “origin story” came later. In his podcast on Mary’s virginity (iirc it was posted a couple of weeks ago) Bart Ehrman noted that important figures had similarly “adventurous” early life like Romulus and Remus, Hercules, Moses, etc. Matthew’s account in particular seems to draw a parallel with Moses (escaping the killing of the innocent babies, the trip to Egypt and back, etc.) Definitely, when all evidence point to the stories about Jesus birth being literary devices in tune with the cultural milieu of the time, it seems silly to me to try to come up with convoluted explanation to fit them in actual history.
All Roman censuses that we know of, were about taxation and military service (something that didn't apply to provincials). If there were an attempt to sort out tribal lineages, then for reason of taxation. So to consider this, it would be necessary to find another Roman census that attempted that sort of thing. It's an idea for further research, but without that research turning up actual evidence, it's unfortunately not very convincing.
@@pansepot1490 Although I don't think we can necessarily conclude that the Bethlehem origin story came _later_ - Matthew and Luke draw from sources other than Mark, so while Mark's tradition was not interested in that stuff, it may be that other traditions had already developed one or several origin stories. But to be fair, it doesn't really make any difference at this time.
The Romans probably didn't give a damn what tribe anyone was from 😂they didn't care to respect the traditions or religions of their conquered subjects.
For further exploration would be good to look into Tim Wallace Murphy’s work on the origins of Jesus, since according to his decades of research Nazareth didn’t even exist in the time of Jesus.
If Joseph owned property in Bethlehem, would that make the stable/manger story in Luke less plausible? Would owning property make it significantly more likely that there was a place where he could stay the night?
Some pure conjecture on my part: Assume Joseph and Mary did live in Bethlehem before Mary becomes pregnant, but decide to live in Nazareth for the several months where she will be visibly pregnant, and also very obviously not married. They're going to be gone for 6-12 months, so they "rent out" their house (assuming they had a house) to someone else for the period they expect to be gone. They're poor, so it's reasonable to expect that they're not going to *hire* someone to look after the house for several months. Then the census comes along and forces them to travel back to Bethlehem. They probably can't afford to just kick out whoever has been renting their house. But my main opinion is that there are so few details written in Matthew and Luke that it's impossible for us to figure out what really happened from what little was written. Or at least, not to the level of detail that we'd like to see.
Well, the stable part is likely implausible because that's considered by many to be a translation error. Much like the concept of the inn, it doesn't match the place or buildings and how the language was used at the time. The houses were build in such a way that the bottom floor housed animals, and bedrooms were often on upper floors, in some houses these were accessible by ladders. If the house was full of other people - as it likely would be if everyone is having to travel, the heavily pregnant woman less likely to get up a ladder may sleep down with the animals, which in many cultures isn't that odd.
@@dehn6581 - Indeed, I've heard that description from many people. Mary would be "with the animals", but on the first floor of some family's home. And the animals in question would be the few animals owned by that family.
I heard that there was a town called Bethlehem in Galilee that was close to Nazareth, and some scholars have suggested that this town is where Jesus was born. What do you think of these claims?
I'm willing to continue believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but I also understand that the two narratives that we have (Matthew and Luke) are very short on helpful details. I can come up with several plausible explanations, but all of them would depend on speculation which is not part of either written record. But consider: Assume Joseph and Mary did live in Bethlehem while they were "engaged" (or whatever the equivalent would be at the time). Mary is pregnant. Joseph decides that he won't break the engagement, but he's also not going to have an official marriage ceremony until after the new child is born. In a small town like Bethlehem, this couple would rapidly be the talk of the town, and living there will be very uncomfortable for both Joseph and Mary. So they *temporarily* move to Nazareth, maybe to stay with relatives there until after the child is born. Maybe they're expecting to stay there for 6-12 months. Unfortunately the census comes along, and requires them to head back down to Bethlehem because that *IS* where they live. It's where they had been living, and it's where they expect to live as soon as the newborn Jesus is old enough to make the trip back. But that census forces them to head back earlier than they originally intended. The first thing that anyone would notice about this idea is that I don't have a shred of evidence for it. But something *like* this could have been the full story, and the problem is that neither Matthew nor Luke wrote down the full story. Or anything even close to the full story.
I am also very much certain that there are many aspects of our "traditional" Christmas story which are almost certainly wrong. But they're wrong because we've read things into the text which was never actually there. The most obvious example is that there is zero chance that the Wise Men who bought three notable gifts met the baby Jesus while he was still a newborn. What little that we have in the Christmas story does not state that they met him while he was in the manger.
Great video, as always! A very recent contribution to the debate was not included and I'd be curious what others thought of it: Clayton Croy, Escaping Shame: Mary's Dilemma and the Birthplace of Jesus. Novum Testamentum Supplements 187. Brill, 2022. In my view, this is a very significant book arguing for the authenticity of the birth in Bethlehem. Croy argues that going to Bethlehem and back to Nazareth is deliberately timed with Jesus's birth so that no one knows the precise chronology of when Mary conceived, when Joseph and Mary were married, and when Jesus was born. In other words, to hide the pre-marital conception. I find the scenario remarkably plausible.
I've always known that Yeshua was born in Nazareth and that HIS Family Heritage is from Bethlehem. Inner Knowing, or Clairsentience. Like I am from Manly, NSW, Australia but my Family Heritage is from Bondi, NSW, Australia and North Shore, Auckland, New Zealand, so I come from New Zealand but I was born in Australia.
So, in order to be the messiah according to tradition, Jesus had to be born in Bethleem according to some gospel writers because of the connection between Joseph, the house of David and Bethleem. How does this connection work if Joseph is not Jesus'father? Or am i missing something?
i always figured that since Joseph and Mary would have had the issue of her being very visibly pregnant rather early... that Joseph decided to go "home" to Bethlehem where he likely had relatives. and any census would be both a good opportunity to do that AND a hurry to avoid being locked into /registered in Nazareth. But i agree it makes just as much sense that he was born in Nazareth, and just of the LINE of David
It's very simple to piece together a plausible reason for Mary and Joseph to want to leave their hometown if you accept the premise that she is pregnant with a child that isn't Joseph's and he has chosen to remain married to her (whatever you think about the divine element). So if Joseph had family in Bethlehem, why not depart for there to cover up the scandal?
So if Joseph had family in Bethlehem, why didn't he and a heavily pregnant Mary stay with these relatives when there was no place to stay elsewhere?@@oliverstrahle
@@JohnWerner-te5zy 'Inn' is probably a mistranslation - the NJ Bible translates it as 'living space'. Many years ago the BBC ran a show on Mary which suggested that at the time people in Judea shared their homes with animals - the only part of Luke's account that places them in a stable is the manger. Since mangers could easily be in people's houses, she could have been in a relatives house. I think this is ultimately just a matter of personal belief - but I think it's perfectly possible to disregard the details of the nativity stories in the Bible but still believe he was born in Bethlehem (and equally possible to believe it was a construct to fit a prophecy)
Wait, why didn't you mention that the two aren't mutually exclusive? There is a Bethlehem right next to Nazareth, in the Bethlehem of Galillee. We know that Judean peoples moving into the Galillee in the centuries proceeding Jesus's birth adopted the names of their old cities, and Jesus being born in the Galillee and calling the main city of the area, Nazareth, his home would make sense. This would resolve the issues of the conflicting claims
Because the text makes it very clear that they're speaking about Bethehem of Judea, as does prophecy speaking of where the Messiah would be born. They are mutually exclusive.
@@4rtie no, the text makes it clear they're talking about the birthplace of Bethlehem indicating Davidic descent, as one of the main points of concern is the birthplace of Bethlehem indicating that he is of that ancestry. And like I said earlier, the initial settlers of Bethlehem-upon-Gallillee were likely from Bethlehem of Judea, which would resolve that issue. Besides, as the points in the video indicate, the claims of Jesus being from Bethlehem of Judea are likely incorrect, but seem to come from jumbled information or lack of proper understanding of context from the compilers of the gospels, something which would make sense of if it was the *wrong* Bethlehem Think about it, prophecies rarely manifest themselves in the most straightforward, Occam's Razor way. This would provide the ultimate grey area that would persuade many, but not most, Jews to hear out this Gallillean preacher
@@Noctem_pasa Luke 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Micah 5:2 They are very explicit about it being Bethlehem of Judah. Also, I think assuming that the people of Bethlehem of Judah and those of Bethlehem of Galilee are the same is a bit odd. "House of Bread" is not a very unique name to come up with and could easily have sprung up as a name naturally from each region simply by having a bakery as the initial basis of the settlement.
_Andor_ is certainly Star Wars for grown-ups -- something I had been waiting for since the late 80s. One of my favorite seasons of all TV, any genre. Better than it has any right to be.
Matthew and Luke also have very different timeframes for these events that cannot be reconciled in any way, shape, or form. According to Luke, the family traveled to Jerusalem about a month after Jesus' birth and circumcision to participate in additional purification rituals at the Temple. They did not then return to Bethlehem but went straight on home to Nazareth. Matthew, however, says that after the Magi visited them at the house where they were staying in Bethlehem, they immediately left for Egypt and did not go to Nazareth until much later. Clearly both cannot be right. There isn't enough time in Luke's scenario for them to do all they needed to do in Jerusalem, flee to Egypt and then return to Nazareth.
I’d argue that you’re looking at the wording wrong, and maybe these seems like a quibble, but it’s exactly how we speak nowadays. I might tell someone I moved to a new state after I graduated from college, and I might tell someone else I went back to live with my parents after college in the same city. They’re both true, it’s just a different timeframe that I’m not specifying. I did move states after college and never had my own place until I did-but I also lived with my parents for about a year first. I’m just skipping over a chunk of time. It seems to me that Matthew and Luke are telling different parts of Jesus’ childhood and origins. Matthew tells the story of the Magi and fleeing to Egypt, which Luke does not outline, but rather tells a different part of the story. Instead, after relaying the story in Jerusalem, he mentions they return to Nazareth, which is true. He’s just not telling the whole in-between. I get that a lot of people wouldn’t find this convincing, but the two stories don’t necessarily cancel each other out.
The unfortunate reality of these arguments is that many of them rely (because this is all we have as far as sources) on "argument from silence" positions. Because Luke/Matthew do not mention X, X therefore is suspect. You understand this while still relying on evidence, which is why you mentioned plausibility/probability in such events happening and not "It had to/did not happen". Which, kudos. You also provide arguments and counterarguments, and then come to a conclusion to allow for your audience to wrestle with the discussion. Which is why this one of my favorite and challenging channels. But we all agree on one thing: 19th century religious scholars were the worst. Merry Christmas!
Since Luke probably got his information from the Blessed Mother, I, personally, will take his word for where Jesus was born. In my humble opinion she is a better source of information than a thousand "biblical scholars" no matter how long their books are. You so readily assume that evangelists are liars.
Mathew and Luke (which were written chronologically decades after Mark) read like a retelling of Mark but adding details to counter skeptics. When they are confronted with the Jewish claim that the Messiah must come from the line of David, they add details to the story to make that connection. It makes it less credible.
That's how many atheists read it. Mark seems to put Jesus in Nazareth for the same reason that Matthew 2:23 claimed he was. But if he came from Nazareth, then he wasn't the Messiah. So Matthew and Luke separately came up with reasons why he would both come from Nazareth but be born in Bethlehem -- Matthew has Bethlehem as the hometown but gives him reason to leave and find a new home, and Luke has Nazareth as the hometown but gives his parents reason to be in Bethlehem when he's born. It certainly does seem less credible, not merely because they contradict each other but also because the earliest gospel didn't seem interested in even giving these details if it had them, like as if they weren't really important.
@@Starcrash6984 On one point of your comment I am not clear. Mathew, though placed in the Bible ahead of the other Gospels, was written long after Mark. I was confused because you said "Mark seems to put Jesus in Nazareth for the same reason that Matthew 2:23 claimed he was. This seems to imply that Mathew was first, and that Mark later agreed. From the rest of your comment this seems like it was unintentional.
@@doppelganger8252 Evidence for what? Jesus? Or do you mean the chronological order of the books of the Bible? That isn't me deciding that. That is virtually the whole of biblical scholarship that concluded that. Also, that the titles of the Gospels were added long after everyone associated with the events, as well as the actual authors were dead and gone. As far as can be determined, those books were written anonymously. And the writers were not themselves witnesses. From Wikpedia: Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66-70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85-90,[6] and John AD 90-110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
@@janerkenbrack3373 Unintentional. Like most atheists, I'm well-aware that Mark was written first. I was implying that, while Matthew gave explanation for why Jesus came from "Nazareth", a town that is doubtful to have even existed in Jesus' time, he was starting with that premise because Mark did first.
Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/religionforbreakfast
Watch Patrick Willems’ holiday special here!: nebula.tv/videos/patrickhwillems-star-wars-holiday-special?ref=religionforbreakfast
Remember what the Nativity scene looks like in Bethlehem this year. Remember who has slain more children than Herod could have ever dreamed of doing.
From the River to the Sea,
Palestine _will_ be free 🇵🇸
Whatever you are doing its not going to work. The Birth and Resurrection of Christ is done. Tetelestai.
Bethlehem is the Eternal Birthplace of Christ Almighty because He fulfilled all the prophesies. ALL OF THEM. Including being born of the line of David in Bethlehem.
Do a video on the end that Herod the "great" and what he and all his descendants met with before their death. And Joy to the world, our Lord is Born!
@@miastupid7911 Interesting description for made-up prophecies, unfulfilled prophecies, misunderstood prophecies ... I've probably forgotten some, but the record is extremely unimpressive.
@@KaiHenningsen Mr Henningsen the prophesies are all there in the Hebrew Bible written by The Hebrew Prophets and Kings and heads of the Hebrew religion throughout history. No one misunderstood any of it until now (or at least 600 years AC) and now it is being massively produced on your screen where we are witnessing everything is upside down including what it means to be human (which includes you, so beware of all the revisionism let loose from Pandora's box).
Andor is the only thing good to come out of the Star Wars universe in a long time.
“Can anything good come from Nazareth?”
~Nathanael, Disciple and early troll
😂
That honestly made me laugh more than it should have. A 2000 year difference, and yet shitting on cities remains a popular tradition
And....Nazareth did not exist until the 4th century. The correct translation is "Jesus the Nazarene" Which is something totally different
@@Solo-X Nazareth had been settled as far back as 2200BC. Just because it did not grow large enough to appear in the historical record until the *3rd century does not imply it does not exist. We have archeological proof that it did.
The whole point of Nathaniel's "sick burn" was that is was a backwater.
@@Solo-X Except Jesus was not a Nazarene. He drank wine.
Another element involved is the motivations of the writers. The details of Matthew's narrative suggest he is trying to appeal to a well-to-do Jewish-Christian audience, while Luke is writing to a poor Gentile-Christian audience. Both land on Bethlehem as a key element, but use it in different ways.
Matthew 6:24 "You cannot serve both God and money."
@@just_ben1951ha try telling most churches that
Except wouldn't highlight it being a likely historic reality? If they have different audiences and generally deviate (yes they do) then when they don't that should be viewed as good evidence.
@@kightsunNo since they had to fulfill a prophecy about birth in Bethlehem and may have had a common Q source.
@@tomasrocha6139 except Joe and Mary were faithful Jews so your argument can just be pushed back to them doing to fulfill prophecy and this was reported by the Jew and the Gentile Greek.
The explanation that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he had family or property there is pretty odd considering that a big part of the nativity story is that Jesus was born in a manger because they had nowhere to go in Bethlehem.
If Joseph had property in Bethlehem he may have previously rented them out & needed to honor the rental contracts.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 - Keep spinning.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 There is no truth that you could use to convince these people. They are not here to learn but to despise. We also know that gifts of gold were given which could explain why they have property later in the year.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 Damn timeshares! They're never available when you want them.
Even as a kid, I thought the whole census thing sounded suspicious. What census ever required people to go dozens or hundreds of miles away from their homes just to be counted? It's not only odd, it would be chaotic as hell. Not something the Romans would approve of, let alone require.
Yeah, buy we don't have any evidence of how a Roman census in the Herod Judea would have been taken.
You would think Jesus would've come up in that census too .....hmmm
That makes sense, because the Romans are well known as being overly concerned about the well-being and ease of life of the residents of their rebellious client kingdoms at the far end of nowheresville.
@@brianguillen3989 ...he said, commenting on a video where the host talks about how a Roman census would have been taken.
@@Serai3r/woosh
Holy Cow! 5 years later, you're still making high-quality content in the same manner as you started! That's a true Christmas Miracle! Merry Christmas, Dr. Henry!
I forget the name of a book I read, but it was by a non-Christian historian who was trying very hard to accept the biblical narrative of Jesus. They were able to make plausible most of it, but when it came to Luke’s birth story they gave up. The dates are wrong. The census doesn’t make sense. And even if you accept all that, there’s no way a very pregnant Mary makes the journey to Bethlehem, donkey or no donkey.
It is designed to make sense, it isn't based on any historical facts. It's mythical story about a mythical prophet written be non-jewish people, more likely based in Rome.
@@nriqueog based in Rome? Why write in Greek then? Your bs is showing.
the census date isn't wrong, josephus is the wrong one.
@@willjapheth23789 Greek was the most widespread language of the time. Even if it wasn't their native tongue, people often spoke greek as a second language. similar to English in modern times - go to France, you will find French people who know english; go to Singapore or other Asian countries, you'll find people speaking english; India, english; Italy, english; etc.
@@willjapheth23789 Greek was the preferred language of the Roman elite and had been the lingua franca of the east since Alexander.
Herod's Palace (Herodium) was near Bethlehem. Herod could see Bethlehem from his palace, and Bethlehem residents could see his palace in the distance. It's understandable that Joseph and Mary would not want to stay there long.
Just imagine. All those centuries ago, Christian scholars had these same arguments.
All these comments saying there were two Bethlehems are conveniently forgetting that both Matthew and Luke say that Bethlehem was in Judea, not Galilee. And also the fact that it's pretty clear the Galilee Bethlehem is the City of David. So the two Bethlehem theory does not work, and the stories are just contradictory.
Considering the fact that David was from the tribe of Judah, why would the Galilee Bethlehem be the City of David and not the one in Judea? (Judea is, after all, the restored "kingdom" of Judah after the exile)
@@thejollyviking8083I think they missed a “not” in the sentence.
@@DneilB007 Okay, that makes a lot more sense.
Is that rose
The more I look into the historical accuracy and plausibility of Jesus, the more I understand why the early Jews were sus of him
Just watched this over on Nebula but wanted to jump over here and say how much I enjoyed your work on this topic!
I’m a Christian minister. I found your coverage of the topic excellent! You presented your conclusion while also providing alternative views including their strengths and weaknesses.
Great job! Thank you!!
jim, please repent for disbelieving the Holy Bible.
@user-mc8bb6zo3quser-mc8: Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
.
Physical Israel was cut off as a favored nation when they put God on the cross and cried for Barabbas instead. If any Israelites are saved, it must be in the same way as the Gentiles are - to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and do as he says.
.
God bless as you believe in and follow our Creator - Jesus Christ, the Son of God..
Bruh, is it really “disbelieving in the Holy Spirit” to say “good job using that god-given intellect & determination to track down numerous disparate sources surrounding the historical Jesus beyond what is written at face value in the scriptures; I learned something new today, and will continue to study about the early days of Jesus, and share this knowledge with my secular colleagues” ?
This is one of the biggest reasons Im not a mythicist. If the whole character of Jesus was made up then it makes sense that he would've simply been from Bethlehem rather than having some cleary contrived explination for why he was technically born in Bethlehem even though everyone knew he was from Nazareth. I think Jesus was a real guy that people widely knew was from Nazareth, hence the Bethlehem natavity story.
Yeah the mythicist approach is just jumping through WAYYYYY to many hoops to even begin to be plausible.
@@LoudWaffle - When the major "proof" for THE Yeshu' as an historical figure are books inserted into the Bible written by anonymous Greeks well after the supposed death of the man, some of which draw from a like unnamed source ("Q") and all end up with conflicts over quite a few details, then I would say that it is YOU that is jumping through hoops.
@@MossyMozart That conflicts are the point, the narrative couldn't be too perfect or else it would be (possibly) an actual forgery. We have to remember that historiography isn't meant to be perfect, therefore combining many of the works to form a single smooth narrative is impossible.
The thing is Matthew 2 22 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene. That a prophecy requiring Jesus to be from Nazareth at lest for the writer of Matthew and as such the other Gospel writers likely knew of the same prophecy.
Are we sure that Nazarene actually meant from Nazareth and not some variant of Nazirite/Nazarite? After all the messiah being a Nazarite makes way more sense to find in a prophecy.
^THIS. Finally someone has their thinking cap on!@@mattm8870
This view stems from a lack of knowledge about ancient Jewish culture.
It wasn’t weird for people from Galilee to travel and stay (probably with relatives) near Jerusalem for weeks or even months in order to observe mandatory holy days like Passover, Shavuot, and Succoth. If Jesus was born during any of these holiday pilgrimages (a good time to do a census and tax if you’re Rome) it would have been considered normal.
But it wouldn’t be considered his hometown. They lived in Nazareth, and so that’s where he was from.
@@xunqianbaidu6917this assumes that Rome, during that year, in the Province of Judea, did exactly according to the Roman parameter of law. People forget that things in real life are unpredictable, especially when it comes to local government.
That's why He was called Jesus the Nazarene, but it doesn't change the fact that He also actually born into this world in Bethlehem. Thus, He fulfilled two prophecies at the same time.
I'm not a Christian, but ... we seem to have decided the only reason for a census is taxation.
@@xoxb2isn’t government fun? Almost nothing about that statement has changed in two thousand years
@@matheusmotta1132But if it was in the province of Judea, it must have occurred after the death of Harod. Before that time, it was a client-kingdom of Rome, in which the Roman tax laws were irrelevant. The Romans took tribute from client-kings, they did not tax the people directly.
I was born in a city I wasn’t raised in. My mother went to a different city just to have me there.
Right, like if they knew Jesus was the Messiah. They knew they had to go to Bethlehem to have him there
Probably because your mother went to the nearest hospital. But she wouldn’t travel out of her state/province just to give birth in a shoddy motel.
@@LoudWaffle not fully out of the realm of possibilities. Have you ever heard of anchor babies? There are many reasons why women travel to give birth somewhere. Some women give birth in isolated cabins for "peace of mind", women cross borders and rivers so the child has citizenship of a specific country etc.
@@rwofshjs But they already were citizens of Roman Palestine, travelling to another region within the territory wouldn't make sense for an "anchor baby." Nor would it work like that if they were trying to move to Judea... giving birth there doesn't give them land or a home, and evidently they returned to Gallilee anyways.
As for isolated cabins and whatnot for peace of mind, they gave birth in an animal barn in a fairly large city (for the time) - nevermind the ~90 mile hike while she was in late term.
@@LoudWaffle There were 3 hospitals that were closer. She drove to the one she wanted to give birth in. She did it again 3 years later with my sister.
If Joseph owned land in Bethlehem, why were they looking for lodging in an inn and ending up in a stable?
You can own land somewhere different to where you live, but that doesn’t guarantee any housing or accommodations on it. Greetings!
@@tonyjesus1657No, but it stretches credibility. Much more likely that it would suggest Joseph still had connections and probably relations in Bethlehem.
Tony's answer is possibly correct, but I'll give another. I am a country boy. My family farm is five miles away from a small town, but we say that we are "from" that small town. It could be that Joseph owned property (with or without a house or other structure) a couple of miles outside of Bethlehem. I don't know if you have kids, but sometimes, when it is time, it is TIME. It could very easily be that they thought they could make it to his property, but it was a mile or so away when it was time. It could be that they just didn't quite make it to their destination when Mary gave birth.
Also, regarding owning land, there are many families that own land in farming areas, but move away for various reasons. Structures or improvements decay and fall into disrepair. The family owns the land but there is no longer anything standing on that land.
The airb&B effect
A lot of us don’t necessarily want to stay with our families when visiting.
I've heard these theories before. This is why we must keep our journaling dated and located correctly for future scholars such as yourself.
"Journal fragment 23/71224 dated March 3, 2023 clearly demonstrates that early 21st Century Americans worshipped frequently at a temple known as Chipotle. It's not clear, but evidence suggests that Chipotle was an ancient Meso-American deity primarily associated with salt."
@@gabbleratchet1890 😂
@@gabbleratchet1890 I can see the religious painting of a soccer or American football match. Opposing gods and war paint etc. 😂
As always, your content is superb. I appreciate that whilst you present the scholarly consensus, that you also present counter arguments from other scholars.
To often people like to pretend the scholarly census is unanimous and that any alternative views are just that if Bible thumping layman.
Merry Christmas RFB !
Census according to ancestral hometowns still occur in countries like Lebanon. This just seems weird to other countries, but over here it's been the normm
And everyone travels back to their hometowns for the census…?
@@LoudWaffle yes
Common in Mexico too. My brother had to get his passport in central Mexico because the state his parents are from there even tho he lives up north in the border. U must understand that this ytuber is kinda bias towards Christianity
But did the Romans do that?
@@alvedonaren what do you mean by the Romans? The Roman empire didn't micromanage administrative matters.
There are some basic questions that were overlooked. The city of Nazareth is never mentioned in the entire Old Testament. The only reason it became thought of as the place of birth of the Messiah was due to Matthew 2:23 where it says, "as it was said through the prophet he would be called a Nazarene". There is no prophecy like that in any part of the Old Testament nor is any prophet mentioned. One idea is that it was misreading of the word Nazir which is a person who takes it upon himself to devote his life to God by not drinking or cutting his hair (like Samson). The other issue is Bethlehem. Surely it was the birth place of David. However, the term "city of David" always referred to Jerusalem 2 Sam 5:7, 5:9, 6:10, 6:16. In fact in 1 Kings 2:10 it says David was buried in the city of David and we know he wasn't buried in Bethlehem. In modern times, the city of Bethlehem was almost 100% Christian until the Palestinian Authority was given dominion over it. It is now less than 20% Christian.
Or since Matthew was written 30-40 years after Jesus’ life, it was just a newly-invented “prophecy” to add to the narrative surrounding the new Jesus-centered religion.
Matthew claims fulfillment of a prophecy that was never made-
Matthew 2:23
"And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene."
Jesus is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament nor was he born of a virgin as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.
Matthew 1:23
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel."
Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming.
Matthew 26:64
"I say to all of you; from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the“Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” clouds of heaven.”
Matthew claims God is three:
"Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". (Matthew 28:19)
God states that he is one:
"The LORD is one."
(Deuteronomy 6:4)
Matthew claims 14 generations from David to Jesus.
1st and 2nd Kings states there were 20 generations.
Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming:
"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom".
(Matthew 16:28)
@@twitherspoon8954 Fulfilled in the ascension. Please read it instead of cut and pasting others ideas.
@@dulls8475
_"Fulfilled in the ascension."_
You know none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus, right?
The Gospels were all written anonymously after 70 AD after the prophesies expired unfulfilled to match Jewish expectations of the messiah.
@@dulls8475
_"Please read it instead of cut and pasting others ideas."_
LOL from someone who literally worships propitiatory human sacrifice based solely on a fictional character because mommy told you to.
Ok so I read up on the Tacitus Annals 6.41 passage cited by Sabine Huebner. Unless I am very much mistaken it seems she misunderstood what it said. It's not talking about Rome forcing a client state to conduct a census it is about Rome forcing local tribes to submit to a census AFTER Rome had already annexed the territory. The tribe from Annals 6.41 were from Cappadocia and had fled to Cilicia Tracheia (a client kingdom) in 36 AD (according to my translation) to avoid a census in Cappadocia but according to Tacitus Cappadocia was annexed in 17 AD (Annals 2.42, 2.56) so her example doesn't actually show that the Romans did stuff like that. I think I understand where the confusion took place though. The battle against the tribe took place in a client kingdom but the tribe was fleeing a census in an annexed province. So the the census itself was not done in the client kingdom.
Great research
Interesting.
This is interesting. May I ask for your credentials?
@@sticlavoda5632 I have none. I'm not an expert. I was just reading translations of Annals by Tacitus. I should note that I've since learned that it's definitely possible my interpretation is wrong lol. Because there were apparently two Archelaus's and Tacitus could be referring to Archelaus II (the son) rather than Archelaus of Cappadocia however the text says "Archelaus of Cappadocia" so I'm not sure atm.
Ok let's assume I am incorrect and it was actually referring to Archelaus II (who was alive at the time) and not Archelaus of Cappadocia (despite literally saying that). All the text says is that the tribe was "being compelled, after our [Roman] fashion, to carry out a property census and submit to tribute" it doesn't say they had to submit tribute to Rome it just says "submit to tribute" so presumably in this scenario the tribe would be from Cilicia and not Cappadocia so it would be the king not Rome they were submitting tribute to. So this wouldn't be evidence of the Romans doing a census in a client kingdom but evidence that client kingdoms could conduct Roman style censuses on their own. So even under that scenario it wouldn't be evidence for the Luke nativity story (since that one was clearly ordered by the Romans in the story).
What always confuses me is that Matthew and Luke went to so much trouble to establish the line of descent from David to Joseph but then Joseph isn’t Jesus’ father. I’m sure I’m projecting modern assumptions but still
@ewanhopper4275 - And the supposed lineages don't even match.
@@MossyMozart Did you know that sometimes in a linage people skip the less important people...happens all the time including today. Dont you think that both those gospel writers could have got together to make their words match yet did not. Nor was it corrected later because I suspect people knew more than us about the circumstances of how linages were compiled and thus had no problem with it.
You need to look up about adoption and the rights given to the adopted son in Jewish law.
But I suspect that Jesus was legally Joseph's son. Think about it in a modern context, a woman goes to register her childs birth. The clerk would ask "fathers name?" If the woman says "God, I was impregnated by a holy vision", the clerk is just going to roll their eyes and say "who is your boyfriend over there" and write his name down as the father.
Mary is also a descendant.
I think the travel-to-Bethlehem-for-census story is more plausible than you're making out here. A component everyone seems to have missed out is the Jewish attitude towards ancestral land. If Joseph was indeed a direct descendant of David, then he would've absolutely considered himself a Bethlehemite, despite living in Nazareth. It sounds like Nazareth at the time didn't have very high status anyway, so I can well imagine that if there was an important census coming up, he would've wanted to be registered in Bethlehem, along with his wife and son-to-be.
And making the journey wouldn't have been that big a deal, either. This was the Temple era, Jews were frequently traveling to Jerusalem from all over for the three Pilgrimage festivals. The roads were well-kept, with plenty of inns along the way, and they would've made that journey a few times before, it was a familiar route. And Bethlehem is literally a two-hour walk from Jerusalem, so it was hardly even a detour.
*If Joseph was indeed a direct descendant of David* Why does that matter? He wasn't Jesus' father. *And making the journey wouldn't have been that big a deal, either* It would to a woman nearly 9 months pregnant. Logic and commonsense says a woman that close to birth would be left at home.
Why would Joseph care how a Roman figurehead registered his family? Would it insult his pride for a gang of foreign conquerors to think he was born in Nazareth? The point of the census is to find out *who lives where* so they can *come back and collect taxes." They would not ask "Where does your family origin story begin? Who is your earliest mythohistorical ancestor?" They would ask "Where is your house?"!
@@druidriley3163 Who said she gave birth immediately after they arrived? Luke says she gave birth while they were there, she could have been in a less advanced stage of pregnancy when they went.
Another great Religon For Breakfast video!
I'm surprised you give any credence to the idea that Josephus was a source of the writer of gLuke. It's kind of a fringe view based on some very weak strands that can easily be explained by just common knowledge. Mason's argument is more conjectural than the arguments you dismiss from Sabine.
The London papyrus might not prove the story of Luke, but it does suggest that ancient readers would have found the idea of traveling for a census plausible: such decrees were known to be issued in the Roman Empire.
For some workers working in another town for a limited time, like masons or peddlers, why not. But Mary would still be in Bethlehem or, at least, their home and family would be there.
Going to a city where your grand, grand, grand … parents lived 1000 years ago, no way.
Ancient texts are full of myths and magic and nobody really cared. Science and facts were not as important as today in antiquity.
It also depends on how the gospels are read. One way of reading Luke is that "everyone had to return to their own hometown/place of residence" for the census of Emperor Augustus (for registration, not taxation) which would mean that even though the Gospel says that Joseph was with Mary in Nazareth, Joseph still lived in Bethlehem and therefore had to return to where his home was. However, there is also strong support for the fact that the Bethlehem story was created for a religious purpose, because several texts of the Hebrew Bible say that the prophet and the Messiah can only be born in the City of David and this way of reading would mean that it is not true.
I don't see why the prophecy can't simply mean the Messiah is Davidic, thus from a line that originated in Bethlehem...
Yeah, that’s what the video said.
The city of David is a name for Jerusalem in Hebrew it shouldnt be taken as the city where david was born
Mathew explained why Nazareth was considered Jesus' home town in chapter 3. Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth. Even today, we consider the town wr grew in ad our home town and not necessarily where we were born
Cool, if you watched the first 5 minutes of the video you would hear him say this exact thing. If he was just born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth, why wouldn't the author of Luke just say that? Why the weird implausible census story?
Also don’t a some scholars agree that the massacre of the innocents by King Herod never actually happened?
Yeah, I'd say most scholars say that is a literary invention. Josephus really didn't like Herod, so if it really did happen, it'd be super odd that Josephus would leave that out.
Argument from silence.@@ReligionForBreakfast
@@ReligionForBreakfastwhos to say he didn’t. We dont have most works from the antiquity
Jimmy Akin suggested a variant of Huebner’s hypothesis that seems plausible. Joseph may have had familial roots and property in Bethlehem but was working as a carpenter in Nazareth at the time of the census. He thus returned to Bethlehem to satisfy the census , but fled to Egypt avoid Herod. Upon returning he may have chosen to settle the family back in Nazareth where he had work.
Contrary to a peasant upbringing presupposition, it’s likely that Joseph as a “tekton” was a skilled craftsman who ran a vineyard & farm as the area would have been a prime area for doing so.
Joseph’s descendants, according to the 2nd century historian Hegesippus, had a number of acres (likely inherited) in a prime viticultural area that caught the attention of the late 1st century Emperor Tragan.
See also the 2021 article by the Anglican theologian Ian Paul, “Was Jesus born into a ‘poor’ family?” It contains additional arguments on why Jesus may not have grown up in a peasant family.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 yeah it doesn't make sense for a skilled craftsman to be poor.
@@Joso997rejecting peasant theology also challenges the narrative that Joseph forced pregnant Mary to walk from Nazareth to Bethlehem. He could have made cushions for riding a donkey, or have even made a cart, for her traveling comfort.
@@Joso997I wonder how many skilled craftsmen you know... My father was a brilliant craftsman but utterly failed at making it a business. Those are different skillsets.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 We know Jesus was born poor since at the day of circumcision, Mary and Joseph brought 2 doves instead of a lamb as sacrifice which the Torah permitted for poor families.
Really interesting to see the scholarly take on the nativity. Also, if Herod truly had killed all the boys two and under, you would think there would be at least some mention of such a tragedy in the historical record.
Ah yes, the historical record which has less mentions of the emperor at the time of Jesus, vs mentions of Jesus. Why do you think they’d make mention of atrocities which are common place, let alone why do you think those would survive antiquity, when even the original gospels are not preserved in full (as in the very first copy written), if we do not have the first copies of the gospel, what makes you think people would preserve such an atrocity? Last I checked people weren’t known for saving information in regards to wickedness.
Herod was such a cruel person with so many acts of cruelity it probably would hardly have been noticed. Also Bethlehem was a very small town.
@@chris93703 Herod of the historical, and Jewish religious record, wasn't cruel though. His line is considered the last Jewish monarchy by some. Him expanding the temple did a lot for his image, but not enough for them to get rid of massacres like that.
@@99EKjohnThe emperor at the time remarked that it was better to be Herod's pig than Herod's son. Of course he was cruel.
I forget where I read it but it seems more likely that the Herod killing babies narrative was invented to parallel the story in Exodus.
I think it is reasonable to assume that Mathew and Luke were conflating events that happened before their time as they did not have precise details, it happens all the time that you assume that certain events were contemporaneous that in fact turn out not to have been. It is like the Mandela effect in Biblical times.
This is my take. The authors were codifing what they discovered about Jesus and not being historians they got some details wrong. Luke is not stayed to be a Judean Jew but a Roman physician. A Gentile wouldn't know all the history even most Romans wouldn't know history from all corners of the Empire.
Everyone loves an origin story, whether it's Jesus or Spider-Man.
Or dylan mulvaney🤓
I never understood the “ancestral census”. Why would a Roman governor care about the “ancestral homeland” of the Jewish people while doing a census
It always interested that Joseph's lineage to David is mentioned. Shouldn't have made any difference as according to the NT Joseph wasn't biologically related to Jesus. So, his birth lineage is a "non-sequitur". The only thing of importance would be the lineage of Mary (and of course the Holy Spirit but that is a absurdity.
Isn't it equally plausible that the authors of Matthew and Luke 1-2 believed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but did not necessarily have a complete explanation for why Jesus would have been born there yet grew up in Galilee? This would mean that it may not have been a great theological motivation so much as an attempt to explain something that was viewed as a fact by those authors. I think the author of Luke 1-2 was trying to piece historical events together but without specificity of dates. (I don't think the author of Luke 1-2 is the author of the rest of Luke, by the way)
I think that is what is happening in the apologetics narrative.
The authors believe Jesus is the Messiah even without hearing of the birth in Bethlehem. They are convinced he is the Messiah from other lines of evidence. The scriptures, meanwhile, say the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Therefore, as a result of believing Jesus is the Messiah, the authors also believe that he must have been born in Bethlehem. Filling in the details of how it exactly happened isn't that important. Clearly it was the case that non-Christian jews were criticizing Christians by not having any evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and such criticism was even recorded in the NT. What's the harm in giving one possible explanation (from the author's perspective) of how it happened since they already "know" it to be true as the prophecies said it would happen and Jesus was clearly the Messiah from other lines of evidence?
@@baxterwilliams2170 Agreed! And it's a good example of how ancient thinking worked in general. This kind of deductive reasoning is rampant across the classical period, a product of the belief that reason can lead to the correct answer even without evidence, because reason is itself evidence. I do think the author of Luke 1-2 is making a true attempt to piece together the history available to him, though, whereas Matthew is just presenting a tradition without any attempt to connect it to history.
What’s important to include, which was left out, is the very real possibility that either of Joesph or Mary’s relatives could have been living in Bethlehem. It was common practice to have “two” homes, a familial home and a current residence elsewhere. Joesph did not have to be rich; he simply needed family living elsewhere.
But why would he be required to travel for census if someone else owned a home there?
Also, {citation needed} for that "common practice".
@@varana it’s literally common sense. It’s a practice many societies have done and continue to do, like today. It’s also ridiculous to assume Joseph never had relatives elsewhere.
@@valkeakirahvi it wasn’t a census for who owned land, it was a census to determine how many people there were. Everyone paid taxes, landowning or not
@@dustinwilson3618 Yes but he _wasn't_ there. That's the whole point. The video made a case that going to another town could make sense if he owned some property there, but otherwose going to your relatives home doesn't. You don't have to pay taxes for all towns where soke of your relatives live :D
Israel will destroy Bethlehem so good luck to archaeologists who wanted to confirm the truth of the matter
And Muslims have already destroyed Christian and Jewish structures. Al Aqsa is built ONTOP of the second temple ruins because muslims wanted to insult Jews living in the region. It’s nothing new to say war destroys relics.
@@winter_3407 I need you to realise that most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of historical Palestine that converted to Islam. So if you have an issue with the religion that's youe problem but the people themselves are not foreign.
Unkind regards
Of course he wasn’t born in Bethlehem. What would Mary and Joseph be doing in Pennsylvania?
As Jesus was not supposed to be Joseph’s son, I find the whole lineage question quite baffling. Who cares what the lineage is, or a step father?
Okay so where is bit his lineage I think your taking this morality point view
Mary and Joseph were 2 or 3rd cousin.
They both were descendeds of King David.
This is a reflection of the discussion I had just last year while in Israel. There was much debate but in the end, the birth narrative of Jesus just does not make sense from several perspectives. It is my belief that Jesus was born in the house of Elizabeth. She was already six months pregnant with John the Baptizer when Mary arrived. The Gospel of Luke doesn't say why she made the journey but it is plausible that she went there to assist in the birth of John and have what many would have believed was an illegitimate child. The fact that she was pregnant without being "known" by Joseph would have been a cause for her to be shunned by the rest of the Jewish community and perhaps why he was treated so negatively by the people of Nazareth.
If the gospel writers can't get these simple historical facts correct, why do people trust them to announce the most important things about God and salvation and all these other things. Either God for some reason discloses things in a sloppy way, or this is all man-made
My guess is that whoever modified the original Luke and Matthew version after they were initially written did so wanting to appeal the Jesus story to two different groups of potential converts, one poor and agrarian and the other well to do and urban.
I read a lot of the apocryphal books, trying to read all that we have just out of an interest in the development of Christianity and to see what other perspectives people had back then and I started to notice what you're talking about at the end. There are a lot of scenes and images and whatever that just are in modern Christian ideas of Jesus that aren't in the canonical bible but are in some previously popular apocryphal text. So even though most of it hasn't been widely read for hundreds and hundreds of years it still does influence us.
It's 2 days until my Birthday 🎂 so this is near perfectly timed! Cheers and Hallelujah!
There are two Bethlehems in Israel. One is in Judea another in Galilee not far from Nazareth. Constantine's mother wanted to build a church at the place of the birth of Jesus. She was confronted by a conflict for some said Bethlehem Galilee and others said Bethlehem Judea so she built churches in both places. Both churches where destroyed however the one in Judea was rebuilt and the ruins on the one in Galilee has been found. It makes no sense to suggest Bethlehem Judea being the place of Jesus birth being that it is 90 some miles from Nazareth, also they have found no Herodian artifacts in Bethlehem Judea and many in Bethlehem Galilee.
Luke mentions that it was the first census of Quirinius but he isn't known to have done any other census much less of the entire Roman empire
However Luke was written in greek meaning "first" was "protos" and could also easily mean before Quirinius
I think there was such a census such as this held in 8 BC that took a few years to complete
The census of Quirinius was significant because it caused the Judean revolt which could line up with the story about the killing of 2 year olds in the Bible, although I think that would make Jesus 4 at the time unless I messed up somewhere
Correction:
Herod presumably died in either 4 BC or 1 BC and was the one allegedly carrying out the baby killing so that 8 BC census might be more likely
Yeah. It did always feel like a loophole to get Jesus in the right place to come from the City of David. But I think I’ll still continue to believe
Believe in make believe and myth……
@@Ex_christianmost scholars will say Jesus was a real person. Was he God is a different story
@@jacobschwantz9815 jesus could have been real. But dying and coming back to life 2 days later is the problem and made up.
It has been suggested that Luke got Governor Quirinius confused with Quinctilius (he of the battle of Teutberg) who would more likely have been governor at that time.
Highly unlikely.
There's no evidence that there was a local or worldwide census conducted in the time of Varus. I also don't understand how someone could conflate two names as different as Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and Publius Quinctilius Varus.
It's a glaring historical error. No way round that.
Did Abraham exist? Probably not. Did Moses exist? Probably not. Did David exist? Probably not. Was there a big Israeli empire under a guy named Solomon? Probably not.
I have read Raymond Brown’s “750-page monster.” It’s masterful. In fact, I once almost dropped it on my foot, which would have hurt pretty badly.
😂😂😂
Did you drop both volumes of the sequel on your other foot?
I read it too. I agree. It's masterly.
I wouldn't care to spend one second opening a book that tries to refute God's words written down in the Holy Bible.
@earlysda Then that means you have no way of showing how strong the Bible is in the face of those who disbelieve in it. Ok, your loss. ;P
Raymond Brown was one of the finest stylists of the English language in any genre. I know of few others who can explain their arguments so well.
I wonder if the King Herod mentioned in Luke was actually one the sons also named Herod. Seems easy to mix them up. That still wouldn't line up Luke with Matthew of course, just make him slightly more internally consistent.
Yea, it could have been his son Herod...but he was removed before Quirinius became governor of Syria so there was never any overlap between he and Quirinus. The author of Luke, writing almost a century after the birth of Jesus, just got some facts wrong.
@@stevearmstrong6758 No, Herod Antipas wasn't removed. He was never king of Judea, but he was king in Galilee and Perea.
@@TacticusPrime The point is that even if you use Herod’s son, there is no overlap with Quirinius.
@@stevearmstrong6758 ... what? Yes there is. Herod Antipas ruled until 39 CE. He remained tetrarch for his whole life, unlike his brother who was removed for being incompetent and triggering the said census.
@@TacticusPrime Herod Archelaus was removed…but I see your point, two of his sons were referred to as Herod of something and the third is sometimes referred to as Herod Phillip II today. Plenty of options for confusing the names - especially when writing 80-90 years after the fact and no Google!
None of the Gospel writers were eye witness to the birth and required testimony from those that were.
Two independent sources is still two independent sources. Maybe they got some details wrong and made up stuff for symbolic reasons, but they're still evidence. All we can say is that there's a few reasons to doubt, but it's inconclusive either way.
Excellent video! I would just add that Sabine Huebner says that Quirinius may have actually been a lower official under the reign of a previous governor but this directly contradicts what the gospel of Luke says! It specifically says that Quirinius was governor of Syria.
"This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Luke 2:2 NRSVUE
It also says "when" Quirinius was governor of Syria not that it was just done by him so she can't use that argument either.
Her point was that the Greek word in the phrase you included, hēgemoneuontos, commonly translated as governor, was used flexibly at the time for any higher officials including censors and procurators. I'm not convinced by her argument but that's part of the reasoning for her theory.
A major problem i have with people throwing shade on Luke census date is the "super smart skeptic" starts from a presupposition that the gospel is wrong and the other dates are accurate. Considering the only source we got to start dating these things is Josephus, who was born in the 30s CE and is writing at the turn of the 2nd century it's more likely hes the one conflating dates. We actually know for a fact Josephus screws up dates. Also if its so proposterious for this local census to have taken place this would have been an ancient polemic, not just something that came up in modernity.... VERY VERY WEAK attempt to discredit the gospels.
It's not just the date, it's the motivations to do a census too, as well as the requirements of the census. Saying it's very very weak doesn't make it true, it just makes it look more like you are very very coping.
@@willjapheth23789 sounds like you're the one coping. It is weak evidence, Luke is more contemporary than Josephus who is writing at the end of his life about things from before he was born... And again he has dating errors, so to assume that the gospels are wrong because it doesn't fit your agenda is bias atheist coping..
@the1allahprays2 my dude, I don't care if he was born in Bethlehem or not, and the video host was clear that much of this is about probability. As in, he is open to sources being wrong. For you to acknowledge that presuming sources are true can be problematic all the while clearly presuming the gospels are accurate as evidenced by you claiming a multifaceted criticism of the census narrative "very very weak". Sounds like you have way more confidence in a single 2000 year old source than the video host. You didn't even acknowledge the census motivation and requirements issue, which makes me think you don't think that argument is "very very weak".
Proverb of the day
'Let me take the speck out of your eye' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5).
@@willjapheth23789It seems to me that if literally every near-contemporary person who reported that a person was born in a particular place agreed on what that place was, we should conclude that the person was probably born in that place.
@jdotoz Sure, except that includes just 2 people with different narratives and have a solid reason to say it was Bethlehem without knowing it was. But it's still possible the narratives could be wrong, and Bethlehem still correct. I could see something like Matthew's account happening, more than I could see Luke's account, atleast the census part, which was the part the commenter commented on, the part the video spent much of its time on, and part I did not find the argument for to be 'very very weak'.
If we accept Joseph was a carpenter is it not plausible that from time to time he had to move where construction was occuring?
Great video. I haven’t heard a lot about Jesus being actually from Nazareth but it’s very interesting.
One of the most popular movies on Jesus is, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Can you do a video about the death of Jesus and the widespread belief that Jesus never died on the cross?
Jesus didn’t die on the cross. He send his brother Isukiri to die in his place while Jesus hung out in Japan. This is well documented on the internet, so probably must be true.
@@billcook4768 Wtf are you talking about, you loon?
Right, doesn't Islam teach that god pulled a Chrono Trigger-style swap out, or do I have that wrong?
Also Quirinius is registered as being in a completely different region than Syria during the reign of Herod.
Not too weird, as an analogy, the queen of England also rules Scotland, and in the past Ireland...
@@adrianblake8876 he wasn't a governor or in charge of anything. He was assisting the nephew of Octavian in putting down a revolt.
@@crazyviking24 Sorry, I misread your original comment...
@@crazyviking24Actually at the time he might have been a governor in Asia minor which is why he was helping put down a revolt. He was then later appointed as governor of Syria
@@henrimourant9855 He was governor in Asia Minor in 14bc when he had to fight off a group of desert raiders called the Mamaridae, and legate of Galatia in 5-3bc when putting down a revolt.
Happy Christmas, and thank you for a year packed with fascinating videos!
On one small detail, I'd also suggest that there is no reason that Luke would feel that he needed to prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, given that he was writing to *Gentiles.* They wouldn't have any idea of the prophecy about Bethlehem. Luke brings it up, and then describes why Jesus fulfills the prophecy. But out of the four gospel writers, he has the least reason to even *mention* the prophecy, because the guy he's writing to is not likely to be aware of it and not likely to care about it.
Luke reports what he could find about Jesus. He was probably not the one making things up and was simply reporting the traditions of his current of Christianity.
@@chefchaudard3580 - That's a pretty good point.
I've always wondered about this, and it bothered me because I'm not a historian and can't be sure how this particular custom worked, but jesus is usually referred to as "jesus of nazareth". To me it stands to reason that the name you're called by should be your place of birth, otherwise a person's name would change every time they relocated. For instance, I was born in Salisbury. If without a surname I was simply called Daniel of Salisbury, and I later moved to Glenelg, I would expect that I'd still be referred to as Daniel of Salisbury even when living in Glenelg, since that's where I was born and came from. For the name to change every time I relocate somewhere new, it makes it impossible to determine if I am the same person - I'd be receiving a completely new identity in each new town I lived.
Yes, but as someone who was born in a US State where I lived all of a year and a half of my life, all before memories formed, I can definitely attest that you don't relate to the place you were born, you relate to the place you grew up.
No, people who moved when they were very young rarely identify with their place of birth but rather the place they spent the most time in their formative years. When pressed, a lot of people will say “I was born in X, but I grew up in Y, so I tell people I’m from Y.”
These are valid points. Still, we can't really be 100% certain how this custom was treated 2000+ years ago. By which I mean, we cant be sure since it essentially operated like a surname, and we don't do that anymore, we just carry a family name instead of where you hailed from, so to speak. While you may refer to yourself as being from the place you grew up rather than where you were born, it's not a means of identification like it was back then. I'm not sure if there are any historically reliable documents that explain the 'rules' of how that custom worked, so if anyone knows of such a text, I'm interested to hear about it.
But I do take your points.
noone, Jesus had no family in Bethlehem.
He did in Nazareth.
All of the Bible is from God.
@@earlysda David was born in Bethlehem, which is probably the name of the firstborn son of Ephraim, in Galilee of Israel. Those who are anti-Christ, were Nazis, that could be the reason for the re-location of the birth of Christ.
*Bethlehem is a star constellation, and a loaf of bread.*
Explain yourself
Well Bethlehem literally translates to “house of bread.”
Simple explanation for the whole thing: the gospels were never a historical narrative, and were written as religious allegory. Problem solved.
"for how bad star wars has become" was a great line lol
Where does it say that Joseph was a permanent resident of Nazareth.
Many scholars believe Josephus dates of the census are wrong
Why would he make up a need to go to Bethlehem for a census, if he made it up he could have used a million other reasons.
I had to laugh out loud with that segway into Star Wars at the end ... because suddenly I could imagine a set of Gospels (Sequels) that had been produced without having had an overarching story worked-out at first, resulting in a lot of retconning as they go😄 with a final chapter starting out with "Somehow Jesus had returned".
> a final chapter starting out with "Somehow Jesus had returned"
So...Revelation then. 😆 Gotta say, I was also very impressed by Dr. Henry's double segue first into Star Wars and then into Nebula, lol.
Granted, that’s basically all of Star Wars in a nutshell.
@@playdischord1791 - And Luke Skywalker was the Christ figure therein.
@@MossyMozart Wont that be Anakin? Since he was the one who in the end sacrificed himself for the good? and was the chosen one? Hell his mother 'conceived' him without a father too.
One Israeli archeologist proposed that Jesus was actually born in another Bethlehem instead of the well-known one south of Jerusalem. That site is known as the Bethlehem of Galilee and is a much closer proximity to Nazareth which is the hometown of Jesus. It is currently a Jewish settlement known as a moshav.
RUclips counter-apologist Paulogia is apparently the guy who came up with the whole idea of Star Wars “canon” when he was working for Lucasfilm, back in the day. He based the different levels of canon in the Star Wars expanded universe on how biblical canon is divided up.
Supposedly, the Greek of Luke 2:2 is sufficiently vague that it can be read "the census before Quirinius was governor..." rather than "the first census when Quirinius was governor." This would work well with the political chaos that followed Herod's demise: Archelaus was despised by the Judeans; Augustus had come to distrust Herod (especially his choice of heirs); per Josephus, Rome sent men to determine Herod's actual wealth and its source. A census of sorts could well have been taken at this time if Augustus was contemplating the annexation of Judea before being convinced to accept Herod's will.
Many thanks for your profound presentation!
I think scholars should consider three more clues: According to the gospel of Luke, Mary had a relative from the priestly descendants of Aaron (Elisabeth) who was married to a priest of the Abija-line (Zacharias), both living in the mountains of Judea. Furthermore, Joseph is reported to have been a „tektoon“ (a skilled building worker). Finally, the Galilean city Sepphoris has been destroyed in 4 BCE after an uprising and soon after been rebuild to be the new Galilean capital for Herodes Antipas. Due to high demand, probably a highly skilled Joseph has been recruited for this construction project from far away. To avoid living in the hellenistic city, he lived 8 km away in Jewish Nazaret - perhaps first provisionally and later permanently.
Possibly, Joseph and Mary were from upper class religious families in Judea and went for an attractive laboral opportunity to Sepphoris/Nazaret. Despite many points of the birth stories first may appear to be contradictory, some of these doubts are not for sure!
But if the couple really had its upper class families and possessions in Judea: Why did they stay in a stable when Jesus was born? Maybe their families and their neighbourhood still banished them for regarding Jesus to be an illegitimate child. Even later, enemies of Jesus maliciously blamed him to have been begotten from fornification.
"Even later, enemies of Jesus maliciously blamed him to have been begotten from fornification."
OK, Kanye.
It could make sense but without any kind of grounded evidence, it's at best speculation...
@proculusjulius7035 I absolutely agree. It neither supports a strict apologetic nor a "surely complete fiction" position - any of both or something in between is possible.
When Mary and Joseph went to the temple to be purified after Jesus's birth they brought two turtle doves or two young pigeons (Luke doesn't specify which one), which per Exodus and Leviticus is the sacrifice to offer if you can't afford a lamb, so it doesn't appear that Joseph was particularly wealthy.
Every word in the Holy Bible is from God.
11:27
Joseph’s family being potential landlords was not the take I was expecting but it does recall that one parable about the tenants and the vineyard
Sounds like the Matthew story is more plausible than Luke's. Moving to avoid an oppressor makes alot of sense, a weird census doesn't, though both stories are dripping with convenient references to the Hebrew Bible, which is poetic, but could easily be made up too.
Neither the genealogy in Matthew nor the one in Luke are correct: Messiah was of Ephraim.
Consider that if Herod had known the genealogy, He would have eradicated Christ and not asked where He could be found.
When Jesus was 8 days old they took him to the temple in jerusalem for his circumcision and they offered the low end birds for the poor people offering, so if he was a land owner in Bethlehem also he was strapped for cash.
This is really interesting and well set-out as usual. A couple of potential quibbles: I'm not sure exactly how tribal Biblical Jewish society was, but clearly lineage was still a very big issue for them. On that basis, it might not be at all implausible that Joseph would return to Bethlehem if that were the place of his ancestors. Also, do we have any evidence that the 45th (I think that was the number) generation of ancestor was the last to live there? Is it impossible that he had more recent ancestors from the area? Secondly, we seem to assume that the sole reason for a census is taxation. What if the Romans were in fact trying to place people in a tribal, or lineage, framework for some reason? For me, the biggest ground to disbelieve the details of the Nativity is that it posits a really curious coincidence. That some child had a very peculiar birth, with (depending on the version) illegitimacy but not shunning, slaughter of innocents but lucky escape, travel while heavily pregnant, maji and or donkeys and shepherds, shooting stars, the works, then disappeared for years, then became a star preacher years later. If I were mythologising my favourite preacher after his death, I might want to embroider his origins. Thus the move from "his Dad traced his heritage to Bethlehem" to "he was born in Bethlehem."
You're mostly right, at least on this line of thinking. There's no way to reconcile both versions, and the shepherd version def. doesn't take place in Dec. It's all a work of propoganda--like every old world story, they need to establish divinity in line with traditions that their audience would accept. So they take motifs that already exist, one links jesus to David (elite jews?) and the other adopts Moses story (which follows common Mesopotamian messianic template).
The earlier gospel, Mark, was written circa 40 years after Jesus death and there’s no mention of Jesus’s birth or anything about his life before his ministry. Seems like the necessity of providing Jesus with a “origin story” came later.
In his podcast on Mary’s virginity (iirc it was posted a couple of weeks ago) Bart Ehrman noted that important figures had similarly “adventurous” early life like Romulus and Remus, Hercules, Moses, etc. Matthew’s account in particular seems to draw a parallel with Moses (escaping the killing of the innocent babies, the trip to Egypt and back, etc.)
Definitely, when all evidence point to the stories about Jesus birth being literary devices in tune with the cultural milieu of the time, it seems silly to me to try to come up with convoluted explanation to fit them in actual history.
All Roman censuses that we know of, were about taxation and military service (something that didn't apply to provincials). If there were an attempt to sort out tribal lineages, then for reason of taxation. So to consider this, it would be necessary to find another Roman census that attempted that sort of thing. It's an idea for further research, but without that research turning up actual evidence, it's unfortunately not very convincing.
@@pansepot1490 Although I don't think we can necessarily conclude that the Bethlehem origin story came _later_ - Matthew and Luke draw from sources other than Mark, so while Mark's tradition was not interested in that stuff, it may be that other traditions had already developed one or several origin stories. But to be fair, it doesn't really make any difference at this time.
The Romans probably didn't give a damn what tribe anyone was from 😂they didn't care to respect the traditions or religions of their conquered subjects.
For further exploration would be good to look into Tim Wallace Murphy’s work on the origins of Jesus, since according to his decades of research Nazareth didn’t even exist in the time of Jesus.
I have read that the lukan birth story (chap 1 and 2) was added later. So Luke chapter 3 reads like it is the beginning. Do you agree?
Just in time for my daily walk! Thank you Dr. Henry. Happy holidays 🎄🎁🎉
If Joseph owned property in Bethlehem, would that make the stable/manger story in Luke less plausible? Would owning property make it significantly more likely that there was a place where he could stay the night?
Some pure conjecture on my part: Assume Joseph and Mary did live in Bethlehem before Mary becomes pregnant, but decide to live in Nazareth for the several months where she will be visibly pregnant, and also very obviously not married. They're going to be gone for 6-12 months, so they "rent out" their house (assuming they had a house) to someone else for the period they expect to be gone. They're poor, so it's reasonable to expect that they're not going to *hire* someone to look after the house for several months.
Then the census comes along and forces them to travel back to Bethlehem. They probably can't afford to just kick out whoever has been renting their house.
But my main opinion is that there are so few details written in Matthew and Luke that it's impossible for us to figure out what really happened from what little was written. Or at least, not to the level of detail that we'd like to see.
Well, the stable part is likely implausible because that's considered by many to be a translation error. Much like the concept of the inn, it doesn't match the place or buildings and how the language was used at the time.
The houses were build in such a way that the bottom floor housed animals, and bedrooms were often on upper floors, in some houses these were accessible by ladders. If the house was full of other people - as it likely would be if everyone is having to travel, the heavily pregnant woman less likely to get up a ladder may sleep down with the animals, which in many cultures isn't that odd.
@@dehn6581 - Indeed, I've heard that description from many people. Mary would be "with the animals", but on the first floor of some family's home. And the animals in question would be the few animals owned by that family.
I heard that there was a town called Bethlehem in Galilee that was close to Nazareth, and some scholars have suggested that this town is where Jesus was born. What do you think of these claims?
Yes. Because Jessie was from Bethlehem-Epratah which is in northern Israel. The editors of the gospels were blind guides who corrupted the story.
Bethlehem translates to “House of Bread” but during Christmas it translates to “House of Gingerbread”
Maybe it's like "flash" which is applied to many types of food both meat and fruits.
RFB representing PA. I love it.
Great video as always!
I'm willing to continue believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but I also understand that the two narratives that we have (Matthew and Luke) are very short on helpful details. I can come up with several plausible explanations, but all of them would depend on speculation which is not part of either written record.
But consider: Assume Joseph and Mary did live in Bethlehem while they were "engaged" (or whatever the equivalent would be at the time). Mary is pregnant. Joseph decides that he won't break the engagement, but he's also not going to have an official marriage ceremony until after the new child is born. In a small town like Bethlehem, this couple would rapidly be the talk of the town, and living there will be very uncomfortable for both Joseph and Mary. So they *temporarily* move to Nazareth, maybe to stay with relatives there until after the child is born. Maybe they're expecting to stay there for 6-12 months.
Unfortunately the census comes along, and requires them to head back down to Bethlehem because that *IS* where they live. It's where they had been living, and it's where they expect to live as soon as the newborn Jesus is old enough to make the trip back. But that census forces them to head back earlier than they originally intended.
The first thing that anyone would notice about this idea is that I don't have a shred of evidence for it. But something *like* this could have been the full story, and the problem is that neither Matthew nor Luke wrote down the full story. Or anything even close to the full story.
I am also very much certain that there are many aspects of our "traditional" Christmas story which are almost certainly wrong. But they're wrong because we've read things into the text which was never actually there. The most obvious example is that there is zero chance that the Wise Men who bought three notable gifts met the baby Jesus while he was still a newborn. What little that we have in the Christmas story does not state that they met him while he was in the manger.
This! 💯
Great video, as always! A very recent contribution to the debate was not included and I'd be curious what others thought of it: Clayton Croy, Escaping Shame: Mary's Dilemma and the Birthplace of Jesus. Novum Testamentum Supplements 187. Brill, 2022. In my view, this is a very significant book arguing for the authenticity of the birth in Bethlehem. Croy argues that going to Bethlehem and back to Nazareth is deliberately timed with Jesus's birth so that no one knows the precise chronology of when Mary conceived, when Joseph and Mary were married, and when Jesus was born. In other words, to hide the pre-marital conception. I find the scenario remarkably plausible.
I've always known that Yeshua was born in Nazareth and that HIS Family Heritage is from Bethlehem. Inner Knowing, or Clairsentience. Like I am from Manly, NSW, Australia but my Family Heritage is from Bondi, NSW, Australia and North Shore, Auckland, New Zealand, so I come from New Zealand but I was born in Australia.
As always, thorough & balanced. I cover this through the perspective of Thomas in Thomas 28 on my channel.
So, in order to be the messiah according to tradition, Jesus had to be born in Bethleem according to some gospel writers because of the connection between Joseph, the house of David and Bethleem. How does this connection work if Joseph is not Jesus'father? Or am i missing something?
4th viewer, love your work!
why did i think mary's silhouette was godzilla when i first saw it
i always figured that since Joseph and Mary would have had the issue of her being very visibly pregnant rather early... that Joseph decided to go "home" to Bethlehem where he likely had relatives. and any census would be both a good opportunity to do that AND a hurry to avoid being locked into /registered in Nazareth.
But i agree it makes just as much sense that he was born in Nazareth, and just of the LINE of David
this is actually I really interesting take, what if he was in some way just trying to skip on taxes
It's very simple to piece together a plausible reason for Mary and Joseph to want to leave their hometown if you accept the premise that she is pregnant with a child that isn't Joseph's and he has chosen to remain married to her (whatever you think about the divine element). So if Joseph had family in Bethlehem, why not depart for there to cover up the scandal?
So if Joseph had family in Bethlehem, why didn't he and a heavily pregnant Mary stay with these relatives when there was no place to stay elsewhere?@@oliverstrahle
@@JohnWerner-te5zy 'Inn' is probably a mistranslation - the NJ Bible translates it as 'living space'. Many years ago the BBC ran a show on Mary which suggested that at the time people in Judea shared their homes with animals - the only part of Luke's account that places them in a stable is the manger. Since mangers could easily be in people's houses, she could have been in a relatives house.
I think this is ultimately just a matter of personal belief - but I think it's perfectly possible to disregard the details of the nativity stories in the Bible but still believe he was born in Bethlehem (and equally possible to believe it was a construct to fit a prophecy)
Could the ancient historian and writers just have confused the births of Jesus and Brian?
Wait, why didn't you mention that the two aren't mutually exclusive? There is a Bethlehem right next to Nazareth, in the Bethlehem of Galillee. We know that Judean peoples moving into the Galillee in the centuries proceeding Jesus's birth adopted the names of their old cities, and Jesus being born in the Galillee and calling the main city of the area, Nazareth, his home would make sense. This would resolve the issues of the conflicting claims
Even I know Jesus was born there
Because the text makes it very clear that they're speaking about Bethehem of Judea, as does prophecy speaking of where the Messiah would be born.
They are mutually exclusive.
@@4rtie no, the text makes it clear they're talking about the birthplace of Bethlehem indicating Davidic descent, as one of the main points of concern is the birthplace of Bethlehem indicating that he is of that ancestry. And like I said earlier, the initial settlers of Bethlehem-upon-Gallillee were likely from Bethlehem of Judea, which would resolve that issue. Besides, as the points in the video indicate, the claims of Jesus being from Bethlehem of Judea are likely incorrect, but seem to come from jumbled information or lack of proper understanding of context from the compilers of the gospels, something which would make sense of if it was the *wrong* Bethlehem
Think about it, prophecies rarely manifest themselves in the most straightforward, Occam's Razor way. This would provide the ultimate grey area that would persuade many, but not most, Jews to hear out this Gallillean preacher
@@Noctem_pasa Luke 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Micah 5:2
They are very explicit about it being Bethlehem of Judah. Also, I think assuming that the people of Bethlehem of Judah and those of Bethlehem of Galilee are the same is a bit odd. "House of Bread" is not a very unique name to come up with and could easily have sprung up as a name naturally from each region simply by having a bakery as the initial basis of the settlement.
@@Noctem_pasa No. Both gospels are very clear that the Bethlehem they are talking about is in Judea not Galilee.
_Andor_ is certainly Star Wars for grown-ups -- something I had been waiting for since the late 80s.
One of my favorite seasons of all TV, any genre. Better than it has any right to be.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." -MT
Matthew and Luke also have very different timeframes for these events that cannot be reconciled in any way, shape, or form. According to Luke, the family traveled to Jerusalem about a month after Jesus' birth and circumcision to participate in additional purification rituals at the Temple. They did not then return to Bethlehem but went straight on home to Nazareth. Matthew, however, says that after the Magi visited them at the house where they were staying in Bethlehem, they immediately left for Egypt and did not go to Nazareth until much later. Clearly both cannot be right. There isn't enough time in Luke's scenario for them to do all they needed to do in Jerusalem, flee to Egypt and then return to Nazareth.
I’d argue that you’re looking at the wording wrong, and maybe these seems like a quibble, but it’s exactly how we speak nowadays. I might tell someone I moved to a new state after I graduated from college, and I might tell someone else I went back to live with my parents after college in the same city. They’re both true, it’s just a different timeframe that I’m not specifying. I did move states after college and never had my own place until I did-but I also lived with my parents for about a year first. I’m just skipping over a chunk of time. It seems to me that Matthew and Luke are telling different parts of Jesus’ childhood and origins. Matthew tells the story of the Magi and fleeing to Egypt, which Luke does not outline, but rather tells a different part of the story. Instead, after relaying the story in Jerusalem, he mentions they return to Nazareth, which is true. He’s just not telling the whole in-between. I get that a lot of people wouldn’t find this convincing, but the two stories don’t necessarily cancel each other out.
The unfortunate reality of these arguments is that many of them rely (because this is all we have as far as sources) on "argument from silence" positions. Because Luke/Matthew do not mention X, X therefore is suspect.
You understand this while still relying on evidence, which is why you mentioned plausibility/probability in such events happening and not "It had to/did not happen". Which, kudos.
You also provide arguments and counterarguments, and then come to a conclusion to allow for your audience to wrestle with the discussion. Which is why this one of my favorite and challenging channels.
But we all agree on one thing: 19th century religious scholars were the worst.
Merry Christmas!
Since Luke probably got his information from the Blessed Mother, I, personally, will take his word for where Jesus was born. In my humble opinion she is a better source of information than a thousand "biblical scholars" no matter how long their books are. You so readily assume that evangelists are liars.
Mathew and Luke (which were written chronologically decades after Mark) read like a retelling of Mark but adding details to counter skeptics. When they are confronted with the Jewish claim that the Messiah must come from the line of David, they add details to the story to make that connection.
It makes it less credible.
That's how many atheists read it. Mark seems to put Jesus in Nazareth for the same reason that Matthew 2:23 claimed he was. But if he came from Nazareth, then he wasn't the Messiah. So Matthew and Luke separately came up with reasons why he would both come from Nazareth but be born in Bethlehem -- Matthew has Bethlehem as the hometown but gives him reason to leave and find a new home, and Luke has Nazareth as the hometown but gives his parents reason to be in Bethlehem when he's born.
It certainly does seem less credible, not merely because they contradict each other but also because the earliest gospel didn't seem interested in even giving these details if it had them, like as if they weren't really important.
Evidence?
@@Starcrash6984 On one point of your comment I am not clear. Mathew, though placed in the Bible ahead of the other Gospels, was written long after Mark. I was confused because you said "Mark seems to put Jesus in Nazareth for the same reason that Matthew 2:23 claimed he was.
This seems to imply that Mathew was first, and that Mark later agreed.
From the rest of your comment this seems like it was unintentional.
@@doppelganger8252 Evidence for what? Jesus?
Or do you mean the chronological order of the books of the Bible?
That isn't me deciding that. That is virtually the whole of biblical scholarship that concluded that.
Also, that the titles of the Gospels were added long after everyone associated with the events, as well as the actual authors were dead and gone.
As far as can be determined, those books were written anonymously. And the writers were not themselves witnesses.
From Wikpedia:
Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66-70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85-90,[6] and John AD 90-110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
@@janerkenbrack3373 Unintentional. Like most atheists, I'm well-aware that Mark was written first. I was implying that, while Matthew gave explanation for why Jesus came from "Nazareth", a town that is doubtful to have even existed in Jesus' time, he was starting with that premise because Mark did first.