Note 11 — Part I

Unfortunate as it may be to lose the beautiful story of the birth at Bethlehem, with its poetic imagery of the manger, the visit of the "wise men," and the greeting of the shepherds, the evidence of the four Gospels proves its untruth even more strongly than the story of the miraculous conception.

(a) The contradictory details appearing in the two narratives discredit each as a reliable authority.

Matthew has Jesus born in a house, greeted by "wise men of the East," and going to Egypt immediately after His birth, and remaining there until after Herod's death.

Luke has Him born in a manger, greeted by shepherds, remaining in Bethlehem for several weeks, then going to Jerusalem, and from there returning "into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (Luke II:39). His parents could not have been in Egypt, avoiding the wrath of Herod, because "they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover" (Luke II:41).

Herod's massacre of the innocents is, of course, unknown to Luke, because, according to him, no "flight of the holy family to Egypt" ever took place. This massacre is not mentioned in the four Gospels, except in this Chapter of Matthew, nor is it recorded by any profane historian of that time, like Josephus. Even supposing that Herod—a Roman tetrarch and not an independent despot—would have dared a wholesale slaughter of Roman subjects without express authority from Augustus Cæsar, yet so terrible an event would have left an indelible impression on the Jewish people. If it had occurred, connected as it was with the birth of Jesus, it is incredible that the other evangelists should have omitted all mention of it, as well as Josephus, who records the other cruelties of Herod.

Bethlehem was some six miles south of Jerusalem, and Nazareth some sixty or seventy miles north of Jerusalem. Matthew does not explain why Joseph and Mary should have been in Bethlehem at this time, especially in view of her then approaching confinement. In fact, the inference from Matthew's narrative would be, that they were residents of Bethlehem at this time. But the unvarying testimony of all the Gospels, except in this one passage, is that Galilee was the native country of both Joseph and Mary, and that their home, after her marriage, was at Nazareth. Luke states this explicitly (Luke I:26), and Matthew himself, in every other passage but this, speaks of Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and asserts that Galilee was "his own country" (Matt. XIII:54; XXI:11; XXVI:71).

Luke, who recognizes Nazareth as the native city of Joseph, explains his presence in Bethlehem on the theory that he, being of the house of David, came to Bethlehem to be enrolled under the census taken by Quirinius, pursuant to a decree of Cæsar Augustus (Luke II:1). But the authorities generally agree that this census did not extend to the tetrarchies, like Judæa, and that it was taken at least ten years after the birth of Jesus (Renan, Life of Jesus, Chap. II). Besides, it is taxing one's credulity to the utmost to suppose that the Roman officers would have allowed a citizen of Nazareth to enroll himself in an insignificant village, more than sixty miles distant, on the ground that some problematical ancestor had been anointed with oil in that place a thousand years before (1 Sam. XVI:13).

As to the contradictory accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning Jesus' movements immediately after His birth, Cadman in his "Harmony of the Gospels" pp. 4, 45, 48, "harmonizes" them by printing each of them without comment, as though both could be true.

(b) The silence of Mark and John as to the birth at Bethlehem is even more significant than in the matter of the miraculous conception.

There were two points most essential for Jesus and His followers to establish in order to convince the Jews that He was truly their expected Messiah: (1) that He was of the "house of David"; (2) that He "came" from Bethlehem.

The Old Testament prophecies were explicit on these two points (Jer. XXIII:5; Micah V:2; Ps. CXXXII:11).

This was the general expectancy among the Jews at the time of Jesus' birth (Matt. II:5, 6; XXII:42; Luke I:32).

"Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John VII:42).

With such importance attaching to a birth at Bethlehem, the argument is irresistible that Mark and John, in not mentioning it, either did not know of the story, or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true. Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credibility of the story.

It is further to be noted that, while the claim of Jesus' paternity by the Holy Ghost, if publicly asserted, might have stirred up some scandal among the good people of Nazareth, it could not have been absolutely disproved. But, at the time the Gospels were written, it was comparatively easy to absolutely prove whether Jesus was born at Nazareth or at Bethlehem, more than sixty miles distant.

(c) The claim was never publicly made that He was born at Bethlehem, notwithstanding the great support which that fact, if true, would have given to His cause. To His friends and neighbors of thirty years' standing at Nazareth, and to the "multitudes" in general, He was known only as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Mark VI:1-4; Matt. XXI:11; XXVI:71; Mark XIV:67, 70; Luke IV:16, 22; XXII:59; XXIII:6; John VII:41, 42; XVIII:5, 7, 8; XX:19).

(d) Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever put forth this claim, even when the objection was made that He could not be the Messiah, because He came from Nazareth.

The evidence on this point is, of course, mostly negative, consisting in an entire absence in the four Gospels of any reference to His birth at Bethlehem, except the first account given in Matthew and Luke. Thereafter it is as though it had never occurred, for anything that the Gospels have to say about it.

But in two or three instances the question was directly raised.

Philip, one of the apostles, finds Nathaniel and says to him: "We have found Him, of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Nathaniel's reply is: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

The only answer which Philip makes is: "Come and see" (John I:45, 46).

On another occasion, Jesus' preaching so impressed His hearers that many of them said: Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (John VII:40, 41, 42).

In both these instances the obvious answer to the objection made would have been, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, if that had been a fact.

Again, on the evening of His arrest, Jesus twice affirms that He is "Jesus of Nazareth" (John XVIII:5, 8). It would seem that, in that solemn moment of approaching death, Jesus would have asserted His Messianic claim to a birth at Bethlehem, if it had been a fact. (See also Mark XVI:6; Luke XXIII:6, 7; XXIV:19; John XIX:19).