Can we deduce the nativity events are fiction?

[marco]

Rome built itself on logic, on a superb communication system. A census would give important details of population numbers, used for military purposes or taxation. The simplest way of obtaining information would be for a magistrate and his officers to set up stations and record information, then send it to the Emperor. Rome would have details of colonies thousands of miles away. Joseph would go to his nearest station wherever he lived and Rome would do the rest. Roman efficiency!

Luke's much debated census under Quirinius has people travelling vast distances to some supposed birth town, then back home again. If another census took place, the same wandering of nations would be involved. If a governor ordered such migrations he would possibly lose his head.

Given the importance Luke gives to the census, it is surprising that we are not told about Joseph performing the registration. And if Mary was incapacitated, she would not have been required to travel. One wonders how the hundreds of poor (always with us) managed to make similar journeys.

It is reasonable to assess Luke's tale as rubbish, without probing its supernatural elements.

Does this condemn his entire gospel? Is the explanation for Luke's Bethlehem location a case of fitting a tale to a name in Scripture?

[1213]

What you've just described is Matthew's Gospel. The Jesus family started in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, then settled in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem. Each Gospel deals with Bethlehem differently.

They are little different, but I think not contradictory.

[Difflugia]

They are little different...

They share absolutely no details. There's no overlap at all.

...but I think not contradictory.

I'm sure there are as many word-game-style attempts at harmonization as there are verbal inerrantists, but Matthew and Luke are contradictory in a proper, logical sense. In short, the trips to Egypt and Jerusalem can't be reconciled.

Luke is specific enough about lengths of time that Matthew's trip to Egypt doesn't fit. After the arrival in Bethlehem, Jesus is circumcized on the eighth day, Mary awaits her purification for thirty-three more days (according to Leviticus 12), then they travel to Jerusalem. They remain in Jerusalem until they do "all things that were according to the law of the Lord" and return to Nazareth.

Matthew doesn't have time for Luke's trip to Jerusalem. He starts the narrative with the birth in Bethlehem and the wise men travel to the family's house (!) there. As the magi leave, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream and they depart for Egypt. They remain in Egypt until Herod dies and Joseph is once again given instructions in a dream. They return to Palestine, but don't enter Judea (where both Bethlehem and Jerusalem are) because Joseph is afraid of Archelaus. They go instead to Nazareth in Galilee.

If they go to both Jerusalem and Egypt, the Jerusalem trip must be before the trip to Egypt because after Herod died, they didn't enter Judea. The only time that isn't accounted for in Luke's narrative and could accommodate the Egypt trip, however, is during Mary's purification time. That would put the Egypt trip before the Jerusalem trip, though, and the Jerusalem trip can't happen afterward. They contradict.

John can only be reconciled with a Bethlehem birth if John 7:41-42 isn't actually meant as the pair of rhetorical questions that it appears. The most reasonable meaning of the text is that Jesus did come out of Galilee and is not of the seed of David and from Bethlehem. Since the questions are rhetorical and not answered, however, it's grammatically possible that the answers to the questions actually are that Jesus was descended of David and from Bethlehem. There's not a technical contradiction, but a harmonization requires an unnatural reading of John's text.

[marco]

They are little different, but I think not contradictory.

Would it matter to one's faith if they were seen to be blatant contradictions? Faith does not argue: faith demonstrates it's perseverance through any storms. Whether there are contradictions or not, the appearance of shepherds summoned by angels who then "return to heaven" and the supernatural explanation of Joseph's journeys should be sufficient for us either to call it a biblical day or renounce reason. On that decision we can accept contradictions in genealogies and need not know the names of the Magi or their place of origin. The word "credo" covers all eventualities.

[1213]

…They share absolutely no details. There's no overlap at all.

I think only reason to say that is that one has not read the scriptures.

…Luke is specific enough about lengths of time that Matthew's trip to Egypt doesn't fit. After the arrival in Bethlehem, Jesus is circumcized on the eighth day, Mary awaits her purification for thirty-three more days (according to Leviticus 12), then they travel to Jerusalem. They remain in Jerusalem until they do "all things that were according to the law of the Lord" and return to Nazareth.

Matthew doesn't have time for Luke's trip to Jerusalem. …

Where it is said that Mary waited for the purification? And why do you think there would not have been time for that? Matthew tells Herod didn’t get the information next day. There could have easily been months.

…If they go to both Jerusalem and Egypt, the Jerusalem trip must be before the trip to Egypt because after Herod died, they didn't enter Judea. The only time that isn't accounted for in Luke's narrative and could accommodate the Egypt trip, however, is during Mary's purification time. That would put the Egypt trip before the Jerusalem trip, though, and the Jerusalem trip can't happen afterward. They contradict.

I agree, Jerusalem trip was before Egypt and there is no Biblical reason to assume otherwise. And by what the Bible tells, it is easily possible that they went to Egypt after the purification period.

…John can only be reconciled with a Bethlehem birth if John 7:41-42 isn't actually meant as the pair of rhetorical questions that it appears. The most reasonable meaning of the text is that Jesus did come out of Galilee and is not of the seed of David and from Bethlehem. Since the questions are rhetorical and not answered, however, it's grammatically possible that the answers to the questions actually are that Jesus was descended of David and from Bethlehem. There's not a technical contradiction, but a harmonization requires an unnatural reading of John's text.

Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "What, does the Christ come out of Galilee? Hasn't the Scripture said that the Christ comes of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?"
John 7:41-42

John seems to be telling how people speculated about Jesus. John is not saying “Jesus is not from Bethlehem". Bible tells that Joseph was for some reason in Galilee before the birth of Jesus, but his hometown was Bethlehem.

Here are what the Bible tells about this:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him." When Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he asked them where the Christ would be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written through the prophet, 'You Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are in no way least among the princes of Judah: For out of you shall come forth a governor, Who shall shepherd my people, Israel.'"… …Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."… …and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
Matt. 2:1-6, 13, 23

It happened in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Mark 9:1

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant… …When eight days were fulfilled for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb… …Behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him… …He came in the Spirit into the temple. When the parents brought in the child, Jesus, that they might do concerning him according to the custom of the law,… …When they had accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
Luke 2:4-5, 21, 25, 27, 39

Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:26-27,39

There is no contradiction. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he was also in other places during his life.

[Athetotheist]

…They share absolutely no details. There's no overlap at all.

I think only reason to say that is that one has not read the scriptures.

…Luke is specific enough about lengths of time that Matthew's trip to Egypt doesn't fit. After the arrival in Bethlehem, Jesus is circumcized on the eighth day, Mary awaits her purification for thirty-three more days (according to Leviticus 12), then they travel to Jerusalem. They remain in Jerusalem until they do "all things that were according to the law of the Lord" and return to Nazareth.

Matthew doesn't have time for Luke's trip to Jerusalem. …

Where it is said that Mary waited for the purification? And why do you think there would not have been time for that? Matthew tells Herod didn’t get the information next day. There could have easily been months.

…If they go to both Jerusalem and Egypt, the Jerusalem trip must be before the trip to Egypt because after Herod died, they didn't enter Judea. The only time that isn't accounted for in Luke's narrative and could accommodate the Egypt trip, however, is during Mary's purification time. That would put the Egypt trip before the Jerusalem trip, though, and the Jerusalem trip can't happen afterward. They contradict.

I agree, Jerusalem trip was before Egypt and there is no Biblical reason to assume otherwise. And by what the Bible tells, it is easily possible that they went to Egypt after the purification period.

…John can only be reconciled with a Bethlehem birth if John 7:41-42 isn't actually meant as the pair of rhetorical questions that it appears. The most reasonable meaning of the text is that Jesus did come out of Galilee and is not of the seed of David and from Bethlehem. Since the questions are rhetorical and not answered, however, it's grammatically possible that the answers to the questions actually are that Jesus was descended of David and from Bethlehem. There's not a technical contradiction, but a harmonization requires an unnatural reading of John's text.

Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "What, does the Christ come out of Galilee? Hasn't the Scripture said that the Christ comes of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?"
John 7:41-42

John seems to be telling how people speculated about Jesus. John is not saying “Jesus is not from Bethlehem". Bible tells that Joseph was for some reason in Galilee before the birth of Jesus, but his hometown was Bethlehem.

Here are what the Bible tells about this:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him." When Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he asked them where the Christ would be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written through the prophet, 'You Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are in no way least among the princes of Judah: For out of you shall come forth a governor, Who shall shepherd my people, Israel.'"… …Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."… …and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
Matt. 2:1-6, 13, 23

It happened in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Mark 9:1

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant… …When eight days were fulfilled for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb… …Behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. This man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him… …He came in the Spirit into the temple. When the parents brought in the child, Jesus, that they might do concerning him according to the custom of the law,… …When they had accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
Luke 2:4-5, 21, 25, 27, 39

Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:26-27,39

There is no contradiction. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he was also in other places during his life.

"Now when the days of her purification according to the law of the Lord were completed, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22).

So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their city, Nazareth." (v. 39).

This leaves no time for them to go to Egypt. They would have had to make the circuit from Nazareth to Bethlehem to Jerusalem and back to Nazareth, and then inexplicably go back to Bethlehem in order to go from there to Egypt. The author of Luke states that he has researched everything carefully (1:3). A major detour to Egypt isn't something a careful researcher would miss. An apologist once suggested to me that "the law of the Lord" in verse 39 included the direction to go to Egypt, but this is not supported by the text.

Matthew and Luke seem to have been working at cross-purposes; the former was trying to present Jesus as a fulfiller of prophecy while the latter was trying to present him as a fulfiller of law.

[Difflugia]

…They share absolutely no details. There's no overlap at all.

I think only reason to say that is that one has not read the scriptures.

I humbly suggest that the reason I say that is because I have read them.

Where it is said that Mary waited for the purification?

Luke 2:22

And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord

Luke 2:21-22 refer to Leviticus 12:3-4.

And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

And why do you think there would not have been time for that? Matthew tells Herod didn’t get the information next day. There could have easily been months.

There's no time in Luke to insert the trip to Egypt from Matthew. Either thirty-three or forty-one days after Jesus was born (depending on whether Luke interpreted the eight days to be included in the time required for purification), they left for Jerusalem.

I agree, Jerusalem trip was before Egypt and there is no Biblical reason to assume otherwise.

According to Luke, they left Jerusalem for Nazareth (Luke 2:39), not Egypt.

And by what the Bible tells, it is easily possible that they went to Egypt after the purification period.

First, "when the days of purification were fulfilled" is either used as a means to tell us how long they remained in Bethlehem or else it's a non sequitur. It's not a direct contradiction by the rules of a logic puzzle, but neither would it make real world sense if Luke meant "the days of purification" plus some undefined, long period of time.

Second, Matthew 2:19 flat-out says that Joseph didn't go into Judea (and thus Jerusalem) after being in Egypt. That is a logic puzzle contradiction.

John seems to be telling how people speculated about Jesus. John is not saying “Jesus is not from Bethlehem". Bible tells that Joseph was for some reason in Galilee before the birth of Jesus, but his hometown was Bethlehem.

No, John seems to be using a rhetorical question to imply that Jesus isn't from Bethlehem. Like I said, though, if this were a logic puzzle, he wouldn't have to be.

Here are what the Bible tells about this:

...

There is no contradiction. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he was also in other places during his life.

If you leave out the verses that contradict, then there's no contradiction. I didn't think inerrantists were allowed to do that, though.

If you're not an inerrantist and want to leave out some verses, it would probably be easier to just say that one (or both) of Matthew and Luke were mistaken about some details.

[Red Wolf]

One of the most ridiculous Christmas stories is found at Luke Chapter 2.
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from
Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

In order to understand the scope of this ridiculous decree, we need to
know that the word translated "world" , as in "all the WORLD should be
taxed." is the exact same word translated "world" in the following verse;
"""And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the WORLD
for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."""

So you can see that according to Luke, everyone in the world, or at least
everyone in the Roman Empire, was to obey the decree of Caesar Augustus,
and return to the city of his birth in order to be taxed.

Think about how crazy this would be. Millions of people would be traveling
many miles, perhaps some traveling hundreds or even a thousand miles,
to get "home" during the month of December, the month with the fewest
hours of daylight and cold weather. Then after registering for the tax, they
would have to go back to where they now resided during the month of
January the coldest month of the year.

The people would have had to walk, or ride horses or donkeys or ride
in wagons. Taking a ship to go home would have been dangerous
as it says at Acts 27:9 , because December is after the "fast" or Day
of Atonement, which is usually in October."""9Now when much time
was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast
was now already past, Paul admonished them,""" Acts 27:9

We live in a modern world with planes, trains, and automobiles,
hotels and motels, fast food restaurants and electricity. We could
do it. But imagine the primitive conditions 2000 years ago and
you can see how ridiculous this idea is.

Does this all seem like a ridiculous way to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth?

Can We Have Confidence In the Gospels When They Contain Ridiculous Stories?

[1213]

…"Now when the days of her purification according to the law of the Lord were completed, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22).

So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their city, Nazareth." (v. 39).

This leaves no time for them to go to Egypt. They would have had to make the circuit from Nazareth to Bethlehem to Jerusalem and back to Nazareth, and then inexplicably go back to Bethlehem in order to go from there to Egypt….

Sorry, I don’t see why they could not have gone to Egypt after they had done what Law requires.

…Matthew and Luke seem to have been working at cross-purposes; the former was trying to present Jesus as a fulfiller of prophecy while the latter was trying to present him as a fulfiller of law.

I think there is no information that makes it impossible that both happened.

[1213]

…There's no time in Luke to insert the trip to Egypt from Matthew. Either thirty-three or forty-one days after Jesus was born (depending on whether Luke interpreted the eight days to be included in the time required for purification), they left for Jerusalem… …According to Luke, they left Jerusalem for Nazareth (Luke 2:39), not Egypt.

Yes, and I don’t see why they could not have gone from Nazareth to Egypt. There is really nothing in Gospels that tells they could not have gone to Egypt after they had done everything Law says and after they went back to Nazareth.

Second, Matthew 2:19 flat-out says that Joseph didn't go into Judea (and thus Jerusalem) after being in Egypt. That is a logic puzzle contradiction.

Yes, I don’t see any reason to claim Joseph went to Jerusalem right after being in Egypt.

…would probably be easier to just say that one (or both) of Matthew and Luke were mistaken about some details.

Easier perhaps, but not truthful, and I want to remain truthful, even though I understand it is not always the easiest path.

[marco]

Sorry, I don’t see why they could not have gone to Egypt after they had done what Law requires.

As has been pointed out the Law would not require mass migrations of populations. It would horrify Rome. In fact when in later centuries people did migrate, it marked the start of Rome's demise. Rome needed to know how many heads could be taxed and would have had not the slightest interest where those heads started their life. When we consider Mary was pregnant, and we're talking not of plane journeys but visiting other countries on perhaps a donkey, we enter fairyland. In fact Alice's adventures make more sense.

Sometimes common sense wins over Luke and Matthew.