Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

The prophet, Nephi, prophesied that Jesus' mother would be from Nazareth but only says that Jesus would be born in "the land of Jerusalem".

This one is easy. Bethlehem IS part of the land of Jerusalem. When King Solomon divided his kingdom, Jerusalem was the "administrative center" for Bethlehem. According to the Bible, the cities controlled the nearby lands. Thus we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron with its suburbs, fields, and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55–56). Tappuah is both a land and a city (Joshua 17:8, and Joshua 16:8–9.) Also, Jeremiah prophesyied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; compare 15:5–7).

Here's the modern borders of Jerusalem - please note that Bethlehem is part of it. Similar concept was going on 2 millenia ago.



2 Kings 14:20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.
Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem...

It would bother me less if LDS scholars would touch on these things instead of shying away from them.

Maybe you just don't know where to look...

LM

[Enlil-An]

I don't understand your believe that the chruch has a literalist approach to the Bible.

The Articles of Faith state that we believe the Bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly". The Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke aren't mistranslations. The entire narratives are completely different accounts. Church manuals and commentaries have always took these stories literally and I believe the General Authorities have too.

They acknowledge that the authors may be mistaken or input opinion. For example, Paul says women shoud not speak in church. I believe that was his opinion, and not doctrine.

If that's the case then it can't be scripture. And if Paul's opinions were wrong regarding women's role in the Church, could he have been wrong on other parts of doctrine as well?

But I think we can rest assured that Paul did not have such a demeaning view of women. One of the most notorious passages of Paul's opinion of women's role in the Church is 1 Timothy 2:11-15. But scholars today almost universally consider 1 Timothy to be a forgery written in Paul's name. The other passage is in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 where Paul supposedly says that women should not speak in church. 1 Corinthians is not disputed by scholars to have been written by anyone other than Paul but these verses are disputed for a number of could reasons. First, it contradicts what Paul says earlier in chapter 11 where he says that women can and do speak in church. Second, many of the oldest manuscripts historians have of 1 Corinthians contain those verses out of order or in different places in the chapter. Some texts even have those verses at the bottom of the chapter or out to the side in the margins as footnotes (written by scribes obviously influenced by 1 Timothy). These and a few other reasons are why most scholars refuse to believe Paul wrote those passages.

But the Lord, apparantly, didn't reveal this to Joseph Smith while he was tranlsating the Bible because instead of leaving these passages out, Joseph Smith simply retranslated them to read that women should not "rule" in the churches.

The bigger point is this: God does not give us all the answers. He presents truth through imperfect means, and it is up to us to decide through the witness of the Holy Ghost what truth is.

If the Holy Ghost doesn't reveal to a prophet like Joseph Smith the discrepancies and interpolations found in the scriptures, how are we to have any chance of discovering the truth of these Biblical passages? Certainly not without professional scholarship. But LDS scholars by and large have rarely address these issues it seems, let alone formed a scholarly hypothesis about them. We are forced to study the works of scholars outside of the Church who do not believe that the Bible is inspired but take an evolutionary view on the beliefs expressed in the scriptures. And with so many discoveries historians have made concerning the New Testament as well as of the Ancient Near East and its influence on the Old Testament, I think LDS scholars should start addressing these issues to help serious students of the Bible and the Church's interpretation of it.

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

LDS scholars by and large have rarely address these issues it seems, let alone formed a scholarly hypothesis about them. ... I think LDS scholars should start addressing these issues to help serious students of the Bible and the Church's interpretation of it.

Just out of curiosity, could you name a few people you consider to be LDS scholars?

LM

[Enlil-An]

I am more interested in your name then your question. Why have you given yourself the names of two Sumerian gods?

I've been studying the Ancient Near East lately as a hobby and I thought it would be a unique user name. Have you studied the cultures of ancient Mesopotamia?

Enlil-An, I agree with you that Matthew sometimes takes unwarranted liberties with his interpretations of Jewish prophecy.

That said, you seem to be (to use the classic legal terminology) "drawing inference upon inference".

On the contrary, it is those who try to reconcile Matthew's account with Lukes who are drawing upon inferences. Nowhere in Matthew's gospel does it say that Jesus' parents are from Nazareth. If we only had Matthew's gospel (like many early Christians in the 1st century), we would naturally assume that Jesus' family was from Bethlehem. It is Luke's gospel that says that Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth.

It's obvious that the Savior's parents in Matthew's gospel are from Bethlehem. It was their home. That's why they stayed there so long after Jesus' birth. That's why they were planning to return there after Herod's death. Luke's divine family are not from Bethlehem, that's why he uses the story of the census as a mechanism to get them there. That's why they stay there only a month before they return home.

If you're using that assumption to assert that Jesus wasn't really born in Bethlehem, that Nephi's account is wrong, and/or that the GAs are suspect because they don't buy into the prior two assertions--that just isn't a bandwagon I'm willing to jump onto.

Nephi isn't wrong at all. Nephi doesn't say what city the Savior was to be born in. That's the point in all the standard works of the Church, the only sources that say that Jesus was born at Bethlehem are Matthew and Luke and not only do they completely contradict each other about how he got from there to Nazareth, their accounts of why he was born at Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth are not credible historically.

Matthew says Joseph moved to Nazareth because he was afraid of Herod's son who became ruler in Judea which is not a valid excuse for him to "turn aside" into Galilee because one of Herod's other sons was also a ruler in Galilee. Luke says that Jesus' parents already came from Nazareth and had to travel to Bethlehem because of the census of Quirinius which is not a valid excuse for getting Jesus to Bethlehem because Roman census' didnt require people to register at the town of their ancestory (not to mention the fact that the census took place in 6 AD the same year that Herod Archelaus - the ruler of Judea Joseph was trying to avoid in Matthew - was banished and seven years after Joseph Smith said the Savior was born).

In other words, Matthew and Luke both try to explain how Jesus was born at Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. They both contradict each other and they both provide unhistorically credible reasons for how it happened. Since these two authors are the only ones in scripture who ascribe Jesus' birth at Bethlehem (John practically denies the idea that Jesus was born at Bethlehem) and since their accounts can't be trusted in the slightest, chances are the Savior was never born in Bethlehem at all.

I don't really care whether Jesus was born at Bethlehem or not but the point is that if he was it didn't happen the way Matthew and Luke said it did.

[Enlil-An]

It never says Christ was 2 years old when the wise men arrived at His doorstep.
It says, that after Herod realized his wise men weren't going to return at all, it had been two years since Christ's birth.

You should read it again. The wise men were the ones who told King Herod that the star appeared two years previously. When the wise men find Jesus, Matthew specifically refers to him as a "young child". After the wise men leave, then the Lord warns Joseph to flee into Egypt.

Matthew does not say that Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem.
(He does say that Joseph wanted to put Mary away privily, and I would not be surprised if they left wherever they were FROM [where people knew her, and knew she was unwed/pregnant] and went to a town where people wouldn't know of her condition)

Then why did they return (your words, not Matthews) back to Nazareth? Did they assume everyone in that one-horse town would forget the whole unholy affair after a few years?

Luke states:
39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Which contradicts Matthew who says, "he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth". Compare the wording of the two.

But it doesn't say how long it took to do all the things, what all the things were, and where they were currently dwelling before their return.

Yes it does because it says, "when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord" and since we have the law in Leviticus, whe know that it wouldn't have been more than a month - nowhere near two years.

[Enlil-An]

Bethlehem IS part of the land of Jerusalem.

The point is that there is nothing in modern revelation which specifically says that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. The only scriptural sources that do are Matthew and Luke and their explainations of how Jesus got there are not plausible. So there is every reason to suppose that Jesus wasnt born there at all or if he was, the real reason he grew up in Nazareth and not Bethlehem has been buried beneath oral tradition.

Just out of curiosity, could you name a few people you consider to be LDS scholars?

I have recently sent e-mails to several scholars who often appear on the LDS round table discussions on the BYU channel. I'll let you know what they say. But I'm familiar with several student manuals and commentaries and none of them have ever aknowledged the contradictary stories of Jesus' birth.

[Hemidakota]

Interesting but there are too many scholars state that the Savior was born in Bethlehem.

[Enlil-An]

Who? LDS scholars? Bible scholars? Were those scholars there? The only sources scholars have to believe Jesus was born at Bethlehem are Matthew and Luke and as we have seen, they are unreliable sources for the birth of Jesus. They both had a motive for concocting such stories. Many Jews had a problem with Jesus being the Messiah because he was from Nazareth and every good Jew knew the Messaih would come out of Bethlehem.

It doesn't matter to me whether Jesus was really born at Bethlehem or not. The problem I have is that all my life I believed the stories in the Bible were, even if mistranslated here and there, nevertheless true. Now I'm finding that's not the case and I'm concerned that I had to discover this outside of Church sources which are supposed to be the supreme, enlightened authority on the scriptures.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

If we only had Matthew's gospel (like many early Christians in the 1st century), we would naturally assume that Jesus' family was from Bethlehem.

We would assume wrongly, for as I've already pointed out Matthew makes no such statement.

It's obvious that the Savior's parents in Matthew's gospel are from Bethlehem. It was their home. That's why they stayed there so long after Jesus' birth.

The notion of their having "stayed so long" is pure inference. The term used throughout the story of Herod is "paidion", which properly means "infant".

That's why they were planning to return there after Herod's death.

The notion that they were planning to return "there" is, again, pure inference. Matthew says only that they were going somewhere in Judea. Jerusalem would have been the logical choice as the place to raise the Son of God.

Nephi isn't wrong at all. Nephi doesn't say what city the Savior was to be born in.

He does say it would be in the Land of Jerusalem. You're going to have to do some powerful arguing to convince me that Nephi would consider Nazareth (part of Galilee, which was part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel which fell to the Assyrians nearly a century before Nephi's day) as part of the "land of Jerusalem".

Matthew says Joseph moved to Nazareth because he was afraid of Herod's son who became ruler in Judea which is not a valid excuse for him to "turn aside" into Galilee because one of Herod's other sons was also a ruler in Galilee.

Another inference. Matthew does not say Joseph feared Archelaus because he was Herod's son. He merely notes that Archelaus reigned "in the room of his father Herod".

Luke says that Jesus' parents already came from Nazareth and had to travel to Bethlehem because of the census of Quirinius which is not a valid excuse for getting Jesus to Bethlehem because Roman census' didnt require people to register at the town of their ancestory (not to mention the fact that the census took place in 6 AD the same year that Herod Archelaus - the ruler of Judea Joseph was trying to avoid in Matthew - was banished and seven years after Joseph Smith said the Savior was born).

Some good points there. Here's another one: Why is Luke going to make such an elementary blunder about Roman census practices in a book written for the benefit of . . . subjects of Rome?

(John practically denies the idea that Jesus was born at Bethlehem)

Source? And why is John more reliable on this point than modern-day Apostles of Christ? None of them were there at the nativity--so why is John so special?

and since their accounts can't be trusted in the slightest, chances are the Savior was never born in Bethlehem at all.

This line of argument seems highly questionable. Allow me to demonstrate the same logic with a different fact pattern:

My wife and I are in a crosswalk when we both become victims of a hit-and-run, where the driver does not stop. I say we were hit by a Ford Expedition. She thinks it was a Chevy Suburban. Since my wife's and my accounts differ, the the logical inference is . . . we obviously weren't hit by any kind of SUV--notwithstanding the testimonies of additional witnesses who say that it was an SUV. Right?

[pam]

JAG have you ever thought about being an attorney?