Can the Christmas stories be reconciled?

JohnClay said:

Why then does the NIV and KJV say "the son of"? Shouldn't translations use the most accurate words? Maybe the reason why people don't want to translate it as "the son of" is because it messes with their explanations for why the genealogies differ.


Is there any hard evidence about Neri having a daughter? Or is it just a hypothesis? So then there are two ancestors of Shealtiel - Solomon and Nathan - I thought they'd include the most impressive ancestor - Solomon....
edit: on the other hand there is a theme in Matthew where Jesus is the King of the Jews (including Solomon) while Luke is very humble, so it makes sense not to be from Solomon.... see:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Click to expand...

Different translations have different goals in mind. Some have the intent of making it easy to read to modern ears, some strive to be thought for thought, and some strive to be more literal. In any case we can say with certainty that "son" is not in the original text. McGrew confirm this, and you can see the original text here, there is no son just a genative.

Should I really need historic evidence that Neri had a daughter? Is it not the case that people have multiple children, and even more the case that established men had multiple child bearers back then? Did not Solomon himself have 700 wives? Given that there are so many historical things we can miss and don't have access to, the impetus on evidence should be attached to the affirmative claim that there are contradictions. Even a nominal hypothesis is sufficient to undermine a claim of contradiction that is not bound in evidence, because such a claim of contradiction is itself nominal. To make a non nominal case of contradiction one has to eliminate, or make unlikely, all the ways in which something could have been achieved.

JohnClay said:

All of that, just for a census... then they would have needed money for accommodation... though they didn't have enough money for a lamb sacrifice - see:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Click to expand...

Ah... but if you want to believe, you can accept a generous donation for the Census.
Luke's Gospel says, for example, that

Luke 8:8 Soon afterwards, He began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him, 2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna the wife of Chuza, steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means.

So, a Harmonizer would just say there probably were financial supporters.

JohnClay said:

You've got to be careful that they didn't have too much money though - otherwise it would be hard to explain why they couldn't afford a lamb sacrifice soon after the birth.

Click to expand...

They spent it all for a place at the stable. Since there was this huge influx of people, prices went sky high and they ended up spending all their grant money. See, no problems.

Or, they were robbed on the road to Jerusalem and by God's miracle only had enough left for the accommodations.

JohnClay said:

Thanks for the link, it looks like you're right about "the son of".


In post #13 you wrote "Neri had a daughter".... that implies there is historic evidence that Neri had a daughter.

Even if we assume that Neri did have a daughter, please provide evidence that: (you wrote in post #13)


Or maybe you're saying that the problem of Shealtiel's fathers must be resolved and that is the only explanation so therefore that's what happened....

Click to expand...

Yes, I said "Neri had a daughter" but if you look up just above that statement it is preceded by "For example". That is to say it is an example of how the preceding sentence could work. There is no historical evidence that I know of that he had a daughter, just as there is no historical evidence that he ate food or drank water. I don't need either of those as they are common expectations and especially so in this case given he shows up in a lineage.

Unless we have reason to believe the historical author is a liar or deranged we should give him the benefit of the doubt. And there are ways in which this does not contradict, as I pointed out. To make the affirmative claim that it is a contradiction one bares a burden of proof for that, either by providing evidence, historical or otherwise, or by making all exceptions unlikely. And the exception I presented is highly likely, given that it is a general occurrence that fathers have sons and daughters, and that established men of that age often had multiple child bearers. So I do not think there is any withstanding claim to contradiction here.

No, they can't be reconciled. Jesus' ministry was public. We have at least 3 independent accounts (Mark, the source shared by Matthew and Luke, and John) that tell roughly the same story (though we'd need to talk about why John has a different feel to it). The same isn't the case with his birth. It's beyond belief that Jesus grew up in Egypt (Matthew), while his family went from Nazareth to Jerusalem every year (Luke).

Yes, you can come up with stories that harmonize the accounts, but are they believable?

The Gospels are accounts of God's activity written by humans.

JohnClay said:

@Sanoy:
If your explanation about Neri is reasonable, please show evidence that someone has thought of it before. If no-one has thought of it before then it seems unlikely that it is the True explanation.

Click to expand...

Before I do this I want to say a few thing that are really important about historical epistemology. Any claim without evidence is equal to any other claim without evidence. A nominal claim of contradiction without evidence, is defeated by a nominal claim of exception without evidence if likelihoods win out. Given all that we don't know there are several paths in which the difference could take to achieve Lukes conclusion, and unless those paths can be diminished, a conclusion of contradiction is unwarranted. If we find difficulty we should rather think he is establishing a true lineage rather than fabricating names that only cause problems to the majority of his audience.

My main point is that other child bearers can be the cause of overlap, whether that be daughters, or wives which I mentioned last time. There is something called Levirate law, in which a widow of a childless man could marry his brother. “In the case of Zerubabbel, it would appear that his biological father was Pedaiah, the younger brother of Shealtiel who died childless. Pedaiah then married the widow of Shealtiel, in accordance with the laws of levirate marriage, and his firstborn son, Zerubabbel, was counted as the son of his deceased brother, Shealtiel, to ‘build up his brother’s family line’ (Deut. 25:9).” - (Brown, Michael L. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: New Testament Objections. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006. 79.)

I think this is further established by Jeremiah 22:30..

So it it seems reasonable for Luke to delineate in regards to Jeconiah, but in Matthews genealogy the delineation is unneeded since there is no blood lineage. There are other paths I could take, but any path, if reasonable in the milieu of ancient uncertainty, is sufficient to deny contradiction.

Here is your second question.
900+ year old people
The ancient near east is what is known as a high context culture. And there is a plentitude of evidence from the ANE that numbers served a semantic purpose, sometimes in greater necessity than their numerical purpose. There is also good reason to see that the ages here serve a semantic purpose (eg Enoch). For that reason I am agnostic as to the meaning of the ages.
A global Flood.
The Hebrews words which would be indicative that this is a global flood are unfortunately also indicative of a local flood because the same word for mountain, is used for hill, and "all the earth" is within a historical context of the region known to the reader. There is evidence of a large flood in the region.
The tower of Babel
A real place, called Etemenanki (house of the foundation of heaven and earth). The view that this, in reality, reached to the heavens is anachronistic because it's an ancient trope (Jeremiah 51:53, Deuteronomy 1:28).
God scattering people around the world?
I think this event corresponds with the Uruk expansion where the whole region all the way to Egypt became united in trade. I think it was established upon protocuneifrom, which later developed into other versions of stylus cuneiform renderings of the protocunieform glyphs. This produced different and vastly different dialects, for example the Ugaritic Cuneiform is vastly different than that of Sumerian cuneiform

JohnClay said:

@Sanoy:
You seem to be saying that it is unthinkable that any part of the stories/genealogies could be invented, therefore they can be reconciled in whatever way is required.

But there are Christians, such as my Anglican priest friend, or the poster @hedrick (post #29), who are open to the possibility of parts being invented (or based on inaccurate rumours) though I think if the reconciliation with real history was reasonable, they'd prefer the historical interpretation.

It seems that arguments regarding Zerubabbel and Shealtiel are quite complex so I'm unable to argue against that. But thanks for your efforts - I will eventually look into that by myself.

You should be able to argue against every apparent contradiction so I'd like to change the topic to the journey from Bethlehem to Nazareth.

In Matthew they begin in a house in Bethlehem. Then it seems when Jesus is about two years old they flee to Egypt.

Matthew Chapter 2

“We are not told into what part of Egypt Joseph went, nor how long he stayed there: some say six or seven years; others but three or four months.” (Poole)

In Luke 2:39
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

So it seems like in Luke they return to Nazareth after a few weeks.

So the first apparent contradiction is that in Matthew they go to Nazareth many years after they do in Luke.

The other apparent contradiction is that in Luke they return to their "own town" of Nazareth while in Matthew they decide to move there because it isn't safe to go back to their home in Bethlehem.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it's "unthinkable" that the Christmas stories have a conflict, I am saying that we have to have a good reason to think that there is a conflict. Even though we are aided by modern translations this is still very much an ancient text. This isn't pliny where it doesn't matter what the text says, there is a lot of cognitive weight here if this is true, and there is very naturally a hastiness to put it aside quickly without due diligence to what is required for an ancient text. I am open to invention, but I'm not going to take that hypotheses for free simply because it's easier than than digging into research. That happens far too much, and I think Christians have become far too inclined to abandon scripture because of the work it takes to defend it.

There are more ostensible contradictions than I have lifetime because there is great interest in finding them. But I will do my best to answer the questions that hinder your faith. Questions like the ones you have here come from critical reading, that's good, but one must also use critical logic. For a contradiction, two statements must be mutually exclusive, Statement A cannot coincide with Statement B, and statement B cannot coincide with Statement A. We should first see if the claim of contradiction is warranted by seeing if two statements actually exclude each other.

Luke says that "when they had performed everything that is required of the law". But we learn in Matthew that they went to Galilee after many years. Is there any reason to believe "when" in Luke is not many years after after His birth? For there to be a contradiction "when" needs to exclude many years. There is no time listed, and it's not the kind of text where we can say "when" is immediately after circumcision. "When" itself declares the time. For example. Frodo left the shire, then went to Bree, when he arrived at Mordor he fought with Gollum and the ring was destroyed. Did Frodo go to Mordor right after Bree?

I haven't studied this near enough, but it appears that Luke's account of Jerusalem could take place between Matthew 2:21 and 2:22. We have two angelic visits in consideration, one to go to Israel, then, sometime after they went to Israel they are told to withdraw from Israel and they go to Galilee. What takes place in Luke could have taken place between these two angelic visits, and that would explain the unexplained intermediate visitation in Matthew to go to Israel rather than straight to Galilee.

JohnClay said:

@Sanoy:
So there are two possibilities - that passages are historical or not historical. If parts aren't historical it doesn't require the rest to also be non-historical. People who believe in this, including Christians, sometimes try to search for the "historical Jesus" (parts that are historical)

About the genealogies:

My theory is that they started with the prophecies (the Messiah descending from Abraham, David, Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel) and the story that "Mary was betrothed to marry Joseph"
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

If they are the only parts of the genealogy that the stories are based on, it isn't surprising that all of the rest of the genealogies (after David) completely disagree.

I want to look at how the two theories (entirely historical vs partly non-historical) explain things.....

So what about the following issues:

Both agree that Abraham is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that David is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that Shealtiel is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that Zerubbabel is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that Joseph is the father of Jesus

Both disagree who is the son of David
Both disagree who is the father of Shealtiel
Both disagree who is the son of Zerubbabel
Both disagree who is the father of Joseph

The idea that at least one isn't historical explains all of the issues perfectly.

The idea that they are both historical is very hard to reconcile - e.g. there are at least six explanations for why Joseph's fathers are different.

Click to expand...

They are historical, what you mean perhaps is historically reliable and that category is determined broadly not with singular incident. Or you may mean historically confident. To paraphrase Philip Harland, Historical methods are employed to discover which things we can have confidence about, areas without confidence are not in doubt, but neutral.

I'd like to stick with 1 topic, and 1 post at a time, when we finish that topic we can move on to the next topic. Your theory of the geneologies is circular. You think they were invented, so the differences are inventions. You can't tell from the text that they are invented, the differences are not indications because they can be different lineages with good reason to establish both parents lineage. Given that both texts in discussion are synoptic, with several decades between, why would they pick contradictory genealogies rather than reusing the same? You need to have textual reason to believe something is invention, because if you conclude it's invention because you think the story of Jesus is an invention then you are thinking in a circle.

Regarding Marys journeys. Your expectations of ancient texts are anachronistic. It is estimated that the Book of Acts would have cost over a thousand dollars to produce. It's not like today where you can just buy a ream a paper for $5 bucks and write to your hearts content and staple it all together. No, you purchase a certain amount of paper and commission the work to be done and you have to be careful what you focus on because you may run out of room elsewhere for more important things. So your expectation that Matthew be a carbon copy of the details of Luke is way, waaay out of line. Further there is good evidence in the synoptics, which is why they are called that, that the writers were aware of the other gospels and tried to include details that the other lacked. For example Matthew 26:68 where they struck Jesus and asked him to prophecy who hit him, and Luke 22:64 where we learn the reason, that Jesus was blindfolded.

Where does it say in Matthew that Bethlehem was their home?

Pick one topic, and lets stick with it, until you are satisfied. Then we will move on to another.

JohnClay said:

When people talk about the "historical Jesus" they are referring to the parts that they believe actually happened - while believing that some other parts didn't actually happen (i.e. they aren't "historical"). Some of them believe there are parables involved. e.g.
John Dominic Crossan - Wikipedia


I'll quote what I wrote again:

My theory is that they started with the prophecies (the Messiah descending from Abraham, David, Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel) and the story that "Mary was betrothed to marry Joseph"
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

If they are the only parts of the genealogy that the stories are based on, it isn't surprising that all of the rest of the genealogies (after David) completely disagree.

I want to look at how the two theories (entirely historical vs partly non-historical) explain things.....

So what about the following issues:

Both agree that Abraham is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that David is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that Shealtiel is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that Zerubbabel is an ancestor of Jesus
Both agree that Joseph is the father of Jesus

Both disagree who is the son of David
Both disagree who is the father of Shealtiel
Both disagree who is the son of Zerubbabel
Both disagree who is the father of Joseph

The idea that at least one isn't historical explains all of the issues perfectly.​

So I looked at both theories, and prefer the non-historical theory because it easily explains all of those commonalities and differences while your theory doesn't explain why those particular people all happened to be problematic.


I think some aspects of Jesus' stories are historic. I have given reasons why things seem to be inventions - they wanted to make the stories fulfil prophecies - so they both include the prophecies. I don't think that Matthew had much knowledge of Luke or vice-versa - they only shared things like Mark and Q. I think wanting to fulfil prophecies is a very good explanation. It explains the genealogies and the journeys. On the other hand when trying to reconcile the part of the genealogies involving Joseph there are at least six theories... then you've got to explain David's sons, Shealtiel's fathers and Zerubbabel's sons. Note that there are no other significant problems in the genealogies - the only problems are the ones that involve fitting it to the prophecies.

So again, I guess you can explain the following:

Both disagree who is the son of David
Both disagree who is the father of Shealtiel
Both disagree who is the son of Zerubbabel
Both disagree who is the father of Joseph​

But my theory (that they only had the prophecies in common, and having no knowledge of the other gospel they fleshed out the details themselves) is very simple. I think one easy explanation is superior than a huge number of guesses - so there is at least six explanations for Joseph's father on Wikipedia, and you gave two explanations for Shealtiel's father - could you also give theories for why David's son differs (probably many possibilities) and why Zerubbabel's sons are different?

Note that if it turned out that the genealogies where completely historical, I haven't lost anything - I didn't start with the belief that there would be problems, it's just what I found after investigating it closely. BTW lately I've been becoming more of a very liberal Christian after being an agnostic.


Just quickly, in Matthew they seem to be in Bethlehem from the very start then stay there for about two years - i.e. it doesn't seem to be that they are just there for a short census. Also Matthew 2:11 says they are in a house (rather than an inn). And in Matthew 2:21-23, they were planning to move to Israel (where Bethlehem was - it seems they'd be returning home) but then they decide to move to Nazareth - the reason for moving to Nazareth is "what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene" (like I was saying, that the stories/genealogies are based on fulfilling prophecies). If you have any counter-arguments I probably can't explain them away, so we could keep the main topic as being about the genealogies.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean by historical now.

There is nothing about the disagreement that suggests invention because you have two lineages to explain, Mary and Joseph. Your explanation makes no sense of the fact that the two in question are synoptic, with the first genealogy being known for a long time. You say that they want to fulfill prophecies, but that was already done with the first genealogical book, so why does the author of second genealogical book, who knows about the first book screw it up and contradict the other one? What is gained by that exercise when all the important people are already touched upon? Your theory has no motive, not just a lack of motive, but a disincentive because it would create problems for no reason. It's inexplicable why they would invent genealogical names when a messianic genealogy was already made several decades ago.

The differences in the genealogies come from them being two different genealogies of two different people. The situation demands a genealogy of Mary His only blood relative, we should not lack one given the virgin birth.

I don't think we can take Matthew 2:11 to mean they were living in Bethlehem from the start. It doesn't say "their" house, but "the" house. His plan to go to Israel we find in Luke, to fulfill what Moses requires.

JohnClay said:

Why then does the NIV and KJV say "the son of"? Shouldn't translations use the most accurate words?

Click to expand...

Translations attempt to convey the most accurate understanding of the text being translated. Since translators are not the original writers, ... there is always some level of subjectivity involved in this .... hence, many different translations.

JohnClay said:

From a plain reading, both gospels are talking about two versions of Joseph's ancestors.

Wikipedia mentions six theories about the genealogies:
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

Note that the first explanation to be thought up was about the natural father vs legal father of Joseph - i.e. there was no belief that one of the genealogies involved Mary.

The belief that Luke could involve Mary's ancestors was only thought up many centuries later.


No I think that is incorrect. Matthew and Luke only had Mark and Q in common. You seem to be claiming that Luke or Matthew had access to the full version of the other. If that is the case, which one was first and did the other gospel have the full access to it?


Which of Matthew and Luke was first? Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
Both are believed to be written around 80-100 BC. You seem to be claiming that one was completely finished then the other had the complete gospel to refer to.


It shows that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, which is very useful for the early church.


What "messianic genealogy" was written several decades ago? Matthew or Luke?


From a plain reading there is nothing in the gospels that hint that Mary is involved in the genealogies - this idea comes purely from people who are trying to explain the differences in the genealogies.


There is no hint of living somewhere else before the birth - a trip from Nazareth would take many days.


They are in Bethlehem for at least 2 years (more since there is no hint they lived somewhere else before the birth) Houses are meant for long term accommodation.


No it would be because Bethlehem was in Israel and they want to go home. What the law requires must be done within a few weeks of Jesus' birth. It doesn't say that Nazareth was their home (like in Luke) which implies that Bethlehem was their home, even if they are renting.

Click to expand...

Are we to decide an ancient text from a plain English reading John? Can you retain a plain reading while glossing over the very strange statement in Luke 3:23 "being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph"? The church fathers write very late about the text, they are speculating on it because they don't know, what they come with or don't come up with has no bearing on what the authors intent is. These are not authority figures on the intentions of Matthew or Luke. Their relative ancient position is still very far removed from the text.

Q isn't what I'm referring too. Matthew and Luke are around 15 years apart. Why would Luke make up a genealogy for Joseph when Josephs genealogy was already established by Matthew '15 years ago? There is no motive for such a thing, certainly not to establish a messianic lineage as that was already established by Matthew. It would only draw scrutiny, not credibility. There is disincentive to do such a thing. Because Josephs genealogy has been established for the last 15 years, the only actual motive in producing another genealogy is for Mary who is the only one who Jesus is a blood relative too.

When I say first and second genealogical book, I am moving between Matthew which came first and Luke which came after Matthew.

Unlike any other historical text, what we have here in the gospels is a courts summons for the reader, accusing one to death, or excusing one to life. There is every incentive to go through this text with a fine toothed comb and create every objection possible, but that isn't historical criticism, that is saving ones skin in mere appearance. Regardless of the consequence, one must be no more critical of it, than he is of another historical text. I fear that is what is taking place here, because there is no reason from the text to see a contradiction here, that is being smuggled in. Mary's genealogy, which is fairly required given the nature of His birth, perfectly explains why there would be two different genealogies.