Nazareth or Bethlehem? Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke have infancy stories. They agree that angel announced Mary's conception, and they agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. They disagree on a number of other things, though, among them: at the time of conception, Matthew situates Jesus' family in Bethlehem. In Luke, they're in Nazareth. This reflects other, more general differences between the two: Matthew is a very "Jewish" gospel; Luke less so. In this case, Matthew may be recalling his Jewish sacred texts (Hebrew Bible), specifically Micah's prophecy from centuries earlier (late eighth century BCE): "you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" (Mic 5:2). And in Matthew, it's Joseph who receives the annunciation, Joseph through whose lineage Jesus is traced back to David (of Judah). Luke, on the other hand, focuses much more on women than do his gospel counterparts, and it is Mary who receives the annunciation. Mary, who is associated with Nazareth, in the Galilean region where Jesus would be remembered as conducting his ministry, teaching and preaching. Noting these differences needn't be an exercise is telling how the Bible can't be trusted, as some assert. Rather, among other things, they demonstrate the tremendous significance Jesus had for his followers in light of the richness of their traditions and theology.
Did you know?... Where was Jesus conceived?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Did you know?... Where was Jesus conceived?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://abytesgen01.securesites.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2582
"[A]t the time of conception, Matthew situates Jesus' family in Bethlehem."
Can you please cite a verse in Matthew (or elsewhere) to substantiate this claim? 2:1 states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem "after" the events pertaining to the conception recorded in chapter 1. I don't see how Matthew & Luke disagree on this point.
Sure thing, though it's a little more complicated than citing a single text. As you know, Matthew begins with a geneaology (a very interesting one, at that -- see my "Holy Mothers of God" post for Christian Century's blog theolog.org). It traces Jesus's lineage back through Joseph whose lineage goes back through Boaz, who you'll remember was Ruth's husband... in Bethlehem. It's no surprise to us, then, to read further in Matthew that Jesus is born in Bethlehem without including any travel narrative (cf. Luke) about getting there. After Joseph, Mary, and Jesus return from refuge in Egypt, the narrator explains that Joseph was afraid to return to Judea (the former southern kingdom, of which their home-town Bethlehem is a part) and instead goes all the way up north into Israel. The narrator then explains that at that point Joseph (with Mary and Jesus) “made his home in a town called Nazareth” – the first we read of Nazareth, and of it as a new place for the young family.
That's a good interpretation, & possibly correct. But like most interpretations, it presupposes that the author thought that Joseph & Mary had always lived in Bethlehem, then assumes it to be true. In fact, there's an equal chance that Matthew didn't know where Joseph & Mary lived at the time of the conception, & was merely reporting the limited information he had.
My point remains that what you implied is not certain. The author did not say that Jesus' family was in Bethlehem at the time of conception, & therefore does not necessarily disagree with the account in Luke.
For an analogy, here are 2 hypothetical bios of me:
1) After completing public elementary school & Catholic high school, G.M. obtained his BS degree from the University of Cincinnati, then took an engineering job in California where he spent the rest of his life working mostly in the aerospace industry.
2) G.M. was born/raised in southern Minnesota, lived for several years on his parents' farm in Kentucky, then spent the rest of his life near San Francisco where he studied ancient jar handles.
Would you, an objective PhD scholar, university professor, & published author, say that these 2 bios "disagree on a number of things"??? Or would you say that they were written by 2 different people with 2 different emphases, neither of which explained every little detail of my life?
P.S. Actually, the focal point of the genealogy in Matthew is Abraham, not Boaz. So you could also argue that Abraham traveled through the Galilee/Nazareth region on his way from Ur to Shechem!