Category: Bible History

Among skeptics, Dr. Aaron Adair is sometimes hailed as the “go to” guy on the Star of Bethlehem.

He’s even written a book arguing that the Star didn’t exist.

Recently, he engaged a post I wrote about the Star of Bethlehem.

Here is my reply . . .

 

First Things First

First, you can read our previous interaction in the comments box on this post.

I want to thank Dr. Adair for striving to maintain a positive tone, both in the combox and in his book, The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View.

Although he has occasional lapses (who doesn’t?), it’s clear that he is striving to avoid the kind of snark and venom that are often found in works by some skeptics.

As a non-fan of snark and venom (including when it is used by Catholics), I appreciate that.

 

Various Proposals

In his book, Adair rightly argues against a number of interpretations of what the Star was, and this is to be expected.

The Star can’t have been all of the different things that have been proposed, and some of the proposals are easier to rule out than others.

Sometimes part of his argument is based on the erroneous (but popular) idea that Jesus was born sometime before 4 B.C.

I’ve argued why that was not the case before, on grounds completely unrelated to the Star (see here, here, and here).

Because he uses the more popular dating, Adair too quickly discounts some possible understandings of the Star, but even in these cases, he has an argument to fall back on.

 

Adair’s Ultimate Argument

For Adair, the ultimate argument against any understanding of the Star as a natural (but providential) phenomenon, is based on the alleged motion of the Star as described by Matthew.

This argument is found in chapter 7 of his book, “           Failure of All Natural Hypotheses,” and it is regularly presented as the “clincher” for why any particular view of the Star as a natural phenomenon cannot be true.

Adair summarizes the argument this way:

Matthew talks about a Star that travels south towards a particular destination, leading on eastern sages, until it comes to its destination, stops and hangs over a particular hovel in the small town of Bethlehem. No object in the sky can do such a thing, not by a long shot.

Although I had not read Adair’s book when I wrote my original post, this was precisely the view I was arguing against.

The text of Matthew does not, in fact, require the star to move in an abnormal manner.

So in the combox, I asked Adair how he would respond, and he provided a brief response.

Since he has more length to argue his view in his book, however, I will reply to what is found there.

 

Going Greek

In my original post, I did not discuss the Greek text of Matthew because I try to keep my blog posts as accessible as possible and because 95%+ of the time, there is no need to appeal to the original language (or, at least, no reason to get into the details).

Adair, however, does rely on the Greek text, and so I’ll need to discuss that here.

Upon reading Adair’s argument concerning the Greek, it became apparent that this was not an area he had full command of. Indeed, the Acknowledgements of his book state:

In order to engage in the texts, I needed to learn the Greek language, in which Carl Anderson and William Blake Tyrell have helped me, though I dare not claim proficiency as they can.

Adair is to be credited for making this admission, and he’s trying to do the best he can with the knowledge of Greek he has.

But it is clear that his handling of the Greek is problematic.

 

Some Examples

To put it briefly, Adair uses incorrect grammatical terminology, does not understand the way a major Greek verb tense works, and overtaxes the language to support his conclusion, not recognizing the degree of flexibility it contains.

As an example of the first (incorrect grammatical terminology), he at one point refers to Greek prepositions taking certain “declinations.” He also identifies the genitive as a “declination.”

This is inaccurate. Greek prepositions do not take “declinations.”

They take “cases” (e.g., genitive, dative, accusative), and the genitive is a case. (This will be familiar if you’ve had Latin, German, or other languages that use cases.)

This is a small matter, though. These could just be slips of the tongue, and we all have those.

What is more serious is his misunderstanding of the way a major Greek verb tense works.

 

In an Instant?

A key part of Adair’s argument depends on a Greek tense known as the “aorist.”

We don’t have this tense in English, but it is the single most common tense in the Greek New Testament.

It is even more frequently used than the present tense, and so understanding it correctly is very important.

Adair notes that two Greek verbs used for the Star (erchomai = “come/go” and histami = “stand”) are both in the aorist tense.

He claims that the aorist tense means that the Star, in an instant, came and stopped its motion in the sky.

Here’s what Adair argues:

As the verb [erchomai] is here conjugated (as a participle), it means that in an instant (the aorist tense) it came to its destination. . . .

The verb [histami] is again conjugated like erchomai to indicate that the Star came to a standstill in an instant using the aorist tense.

This is false.

 

The Abused Aorist

Adair is simply wrong about the meaning of the aorist tense. Greek does not have a tense devoted to things that happen instantaneously. Neither does English. Neither does any language I am aware of.

In English, if you want to signify that something happened instantly, you need to modify the verb with an adverb, like “instantly” or “immediately.”

The same thing is true in Greek. You need to use an adverb like euthus (“immediately,” “at once,” “straight away,” “directly”). In fact, the Gospel of Mark is renown for using euthus regularly just for dramatic effect.

The aorist means something else.

In fact, it tells you very little about the event it is describing.

 

What This Tense Means

The aorist tense is usually (though not always) used to refer to an event in the past, but it tells you very little about that event.

In particular, it does not tell you whether the event was finished or ongoing at the time you are speaking of.

It leaves this matter undefined, which is why it is called the “aorist” tense.

“Undefined” is what the word “aorist” means (this is a case where word origins do point to the meaning of a word).

For example, suppose I was speaking of a particular time last night and I said, “Bob built a fire.”

If I used the aorist tense to say this, you would not be able to tell whether Bob had finished building the fire at the time I was speaking of or whether he was still building it then.

The aorist leaves those matters undefined, and if you want to know the answer to them, you have to look to something other than the verb tense.

Thus William Mounce summarizes the aorist this way:

The aorist indicates an undefined action normally occurring in the past [p. 194].

(For introductory-level presentations of what the aorist does and doesn’t mean, see William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek and D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies. For more advanced discussions, see Daniel Wallace’s         Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and Frank Stagg’s classic article The Abused Aorist).

 

The Bottom Line

The bottom line for our purposes is that the aorist tense is not devoted to actions that happen in an instant, and so Adair is wrong to infer from its use in Matthew that the Star “instantly” came and stood at a particular place in the sky.

It is true that the Star came to stand above the house where Jesus was, but the use of the aorist does not tell us that this happened through a sudden, instantaneous arresting of its motion.

It may have moved in an entirely normal manner to arrive above the house for the magi to see.

This leads to another question . . .

 

A Question of Leadership

Another key part of Adair’s argument concerns another verb that Matthew uses.

Adair states:

The word that describes how the Star “went before” the Magi is the verb proago, which means to lead forward.

But in the context of Matthew, it is even more specific because the verb takes a direction object—that which the verb is acting on—and that direct object is clearly the Magi.

As such, the Star was leading the Magi, bringing them forth to their destination; the Star is doing more than standing in a certain direction or even moving about, but it is actually leading the Magi on.

Here we have another incorrect use of grammatical terminology. Verbs do not “take a direction object.” They can have a direct object. That’s normal with any verb that is being used transitively.

Adair is correct that the verb proago can mean “lead,” when it is used transitively, and let’s suppose that this is the meaning here.

Does this imply an unusual motion on the part of the star?

No.

 

Overtaxing the Language

Suppose I am speaking about a camping trip in which I and my companions got lost at night.

Fortunately for us, we realized that the moon was in the southern sky that night, and so we were able to determine our directions. It also provided light for us as we walked south for a few miles until we got back to our camp.

If I said, “The moon led us back to camp,” am I implying that the moon moved in an unusual way?

Of course not.

The moon moved entirely in the expected way, arcing from east to west at a rate of about 15 degrees per hour, but still staying ahead of us in the southern sky as we walked the short distance back to camp.

Nothing unusual about its motion at all.

Of course the moon is not an intelligent being and so, literally speaking, it does not lead anybody. But we still speak in this way in English, and Greek has the same flexibility.

I could say the same thing about a star that was in the sky in front of us and moved normally.

As a result, Adair is overtaxing the language—trying to get more out of it than one fairly can.

And that’s even granting his preferred translation of proago as “lead.”

 

Even More Flexibility

Most words have more than one meaning, and proago is no exception.

One of the most prestigious Greek dictionaries is the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. It’s so famous that people just call it “Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker” or even “BAGD.”

In addition to listing the transitive use of proago and noting that it means “to take or lead from one position to another by taking charge, lead forward, lead, or bring out”, BAGD notes that proago also has an intransitive usage.

It gives the meaning of the intransitive usage as “to move ahead or in front of, go before, lead the way, precede.”

BAGD gives two examples of this usage, both of them from Matthew.

One is Matthew 21:9, where the crowds go before Jesus during the Triumphal Entry. They obviously are not leading Jesus. He is going into Jerusalem any way, but the crowds precede him on his journey.

The second instance is Matthew 2:9, where the star precedes the magi. The situation is the same: They are going to Bethlehem anyway (based on what they learned in Herod’s court). The star just happens to precede them on their journey.

The recognition of other meanings for proago is not unique to BAGD but will be found in any standard Greek dictionary.

This means there is even more flexibility to the language than mentioned in the previous section of this post, and so Adair is overtaxing the language to an even greater degree.

 

Therefore . . .

We see that Adair’s argument from the Greek is flawed and does not prove what he wishes it to.

Whether you take proago to mean “lead” or simply “go before,” we do not have any indication that the star moved in an unusual way.

Neither does the use of the aorist tense indicate that a rapidly moving star instantly came to a stop.

Given the fact that we are told it is a star implies that we should first seek to understand it as moving in the normal way that stars do, and only if this effort fails should we resort to another hypothesis.

 

It Doesn’t Fail

The trip to Bethlehem likely took between one and four hours (depending on things like whether they were mounted, the darkness, and the unevenness of the terrain), so the star would have moved between 15 and 60 degrees in the night sky.

If that much. They might have left before it got dark, so the actual motion may have been even less.

There is no reason why the star could not have been in the southern sky, moved in a normal east-west arc, remaining in the same basic part of the sky as they journeyed.

Then, when they approached the house—from whatever angle they approached it—they noted that the star was in the part of the sky above the house.

Nothing in the text of Matthew—in English or in Greek—requires the star to move in an abnormal way.

I’d like to thank Dr. Adair for engaging in the comments box on this issue, and I look forward to any further response he would like to make.

The Star of Bethlehem is endlessly fascinating. All kinds of theories about what it was have been proposed.

Based on the way Matthew describes it, some have thought it was a supernatural manifestation that led the magi around.

Some have even suggested it was a flying saucer.

Some have said it was a myth and never really existed.

All of these views are based on the idea that the star didn’t move the way a normal star would.

Is this correct?

Here are 8 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Why would people think the star’s motion was unusual?

There is a popular impression that the magi began following the star in their eastern homeland and that it led them to Jerusalem. This is taken to mean that the star moved from east to west.

From Jerusalem, they go to Bethlehem, which is south of Jerusalem.

Then, according to this impression, the star stops and hovers over the house where Jesus was residing.

The star is thus taken to move from east to west, turn south, and then hover.

That makes it sound like a light in the sky that isn’t a normal star but something else.

However, this account is mistaken.

 

2) Why is it mistaken?

This view goes wrong because of the assumption that the magi were following the star.

That’s not what Matthew says.

Let’s look at what he does say:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying,  “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him” [Matthew 2:1-2].

The phrase “in the East” is ambiguous. It might mean that they were in the East when they saw it (they were from the East, after all), or it may mean that they saw it when it rose over the eastern horizon.

Except for the stars that never set, stars rise over the eastern horizon and set below the western horizon, just like the sun does.

Either way, this does not tell us much, because the event occurred between one and two years earlier, based on the time they tell Herod (Matthew 2:16).

The apparent position of the star would have changed radically over that time, as almost all stars do as the earth orbits the sun.

In any event, Matthew does not say that the magi were following the star. He does not say that it led them to Jerusalem.

Instead, he says something that suggests something else.

 

3) What does he say that suggests they weren’t just following the star?

It’s the fact that they ask where the King of the Jews has been born.

If the star were leading them around by the nose, as it were, then they wouldn’t have had to ask this question. They would have just waited until nightfall and then continued following the star until it led them to the newborn king.

Thus, we have no indication that they followed the star from their homeland in the East to Jerusalem.

Instead, they saw the star from their homeland, realized that it implied the birth of a new king for the Jews, and then went to the royal palace in Jerusalem, where you might expect to find the newborn king.

After a consultation, Herod tells them that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, and they set out again.

But even here, Matthew does not say they were following the star.

 

4) What does he say?

He states:

When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy [Matthew 2:9-10].

So after they leave King Herod, they see the star again. Matthew introduces this by saying “lo” (i.e., “behold!”), indicating something surprising or remarkable.

The fact that they “rejoiced exceedingly with great joy” also suggests that they weren’t following the star. It was a remarkable and joyous (and providential) coincidence that the star was in front of them when this happened.

So it wasn’t that they were following the star. They had stopped to ask where they should go, they were told Bethlehem, and then as they were going to Bethlehem they were surprised and joyous to see the same star in front of them.

This was a providential coincidence, but they would have gone to Bethlehem even if they had not seen the star in front of them.

 

5) Does the fact that the star “went before them” indicate unusual motion on the star’s part?

No. It simply means that the star remained in front of them during the short trip to Bethlehem.

Bethlehem is only six miles from Jerusalem, and since the star was in front of them when they began the six mile walk (or ride), it remained in the same general part of the sky during the short trip.

 

6) Does the fact that the star “came to rest over the place where the child was” indicate unusual motion?

No, but the English translation here (the RSV) is a misleading one.

Saying that it “came to rest” suggests that it stopped moving and started resting. That could suggest unusual motion for a star.

But what the Greek says would be better translated “until it came and stood” or “until it came to stand” over the place.

This just means that, when they drew near at the house, the magi observed that this star appeared to be above the house in the sky—as numerous other stars would have been as well.

This does not mean that this star or the others above the house froze in their motions, only that this was where they were as the magi approached.

It’s another providential coincidence, but it does not indicate unusual motion (or lack of motion) on the part of the star.

 

7) So we don’t have an indication that the star moved in an abnormal manner?

No. The magi were not following it as it zigged and zagged in the sky. In fact, it did not zig and zag in the sky.

So far as we know, the star moved in the entirely normal way that stars do.

It was simply a providential coincidence that, as the magi were on their way to Bethlehem they saw the star in front of them, that it stayed generally in front of them as they journeyed the six miles, and—when they neared the house—was in the part of the sky that was over the house where Jesus was.

 

8) After noting that it was before them when they began their journey, and that it continued to remain before them as they went, could they have used the star to indicate which house in Bethlehem they should check?

This is possible, but they also could have asked if any local families of the line of David had a child of the right age and then noted, upon going to that house, that the star was above it.

Both Matthew and Luke contain accounts of Jesus’ infancy.

But they don’t describe all the same events.

As a result, some have even accused Matthew and Luke of contradicting each other.

What’s the true story? Why did they record different events? And can the two be fit together?

Here are 6 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Why don’t the Gospels all record the same events as each other?

Because there was too much information to fit into a single book about Jesus.

John notes this specifically, and humorously, at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25).

In the ancient world, they didn’t have the printing technology needed to make large books, and so there was pressure to keep each single book short by modern standards.

This meant each Evangelist had to leave many things out.

There was also more than one way to approach telling the story of Jesus, to benefit different audiences, and so each Evangelist takes a somewhat different approach, and that affects his selection of which stories and sayings to include in his Gospel.

 

2) What approaches do Matthew and Luke take in their accounts of Jesus’ childhood?

The accounts of Jesus’ childhood are known as “infancy narratives.”

Although both have many points in common (e.g., Jesus was born of a Virgin named Mary, his foster father was Joseph, he was born in Bethlehem, the family later moved to Nazareth, etc.), it’s clear that Matthew and Luke are emphasizing different aspects of Jesus and the people around him.

Matthew keeps his account short, he focuses on Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph, and he emphasizes Jesus kingly role (descent through Solomon in the genealogy, seen as a threat by King Herod, visited by foreign dignitaries, etc.).

Luke devotes much more space to the events, he focuses on Jesus mother, Mary, and he does not emphasize Jesus’ kingship as much (e.g., he records him being visited by humble shepherds).

 

3) Can we track the movements of the Holy Family (and the others in the narratives) by bringing together Matthew and Luke’s accounts?

Yes. The texts give us enough indications of time and sequence to do this, as follows:

1. Gabriel appears to Zecharaiah in Jerusalem to announce the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-22).

2. At the end of his term of service, Zechariah returns to his home in the hill country of Judea and his wife, Elizabeth, becomes pregnant (Luke 1:23-25; cf. 39).

3. In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the fifth month but before the end of the sixth month), Gabriel appears to Mary in Nazareth to announce the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38).

4. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and stays for three months before returning to Nazareth (Luke 1:39-56). This appears to happen in the ninth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the eighth month but before the end of the ninth month).

5. In the tenth month of her pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the ninth month but before the end of a tenth month), Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist and, eight days later, John is circumcised and named (Luke 1:57-80; note that the ancient Israelites reckoned pregnancy as lasting ten months, not nine; cf. Wisdom 7:2; technically, a pregnancy lasted 9.6 months on the Jewish calendar, but the ancients rounded all fractions up; by comparison, a pregnancy is typically 9.3 months on a modern calendar, but we round this fraction down instead of up).

6. Some time between event 3 and event 7, Joseph is informed that Mary is pregnant and he plans to divorce her quietly. However, an angel appears to him in a dream and tells him to go ahead and continue the marriage (Matthew 1:18-23). Most likely, this event occurred after Mary returned from her visit to Elizabeth. Joseph likely would have waited to deal with the divorce question until Mary’s pregnancy was confirmed, either by it beginning to show or by Mary reaching the point of “quickening” (when the unborn child was large and strong enough for the mother to feel it kicking in the womb). In the absence of pregnancy tests, the ancients used these as proof that a woman was pregnant. These points would have been reached around or shortly after the time Mary remained with Elizabeth. In fact, they may have motivated her return home so that she, also, could go into seclusion for the remainder of her pregnancy.

7. Joseph and Mary then begin cohabiting (Matthew 1:24). This would have been in Nazareth, per Luke’s account.

8. Because of the enrollment announced by Caesar Augustus, the Holy Family is forced to travel to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5), despite Mary’s pregnancy (which was at this point in the second or third trimester). If this was a tax enrollment, the journey was likely required because Joseph owned property there (cf. Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 3:62-63). While there, they likely stayed with relatives, but there were so many that there was no room in the main part of the house, and so they stayed in the part (likely a grotto) where the animals were kept. Animals were often kept in the homes of the people who owned them at this time.

9. Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:7, Matthew 1:24a).

10. That same night, shepherds visited them (Luke 2:8-20).

11. About this time, an unusual star is observed by the magi in their eastern homeland (cf. Matthew 2:2, 16).

12. Eight days after the birth, Jesus was circumcised and named (Luke 2:21, Matthew 1:24b).

13. Forty days after the birth, Jesus was presented at the temple in Jerusalem, and the Holy Family encountered Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:22-38; more here; cf. Leviticus 12:1-8).

13. It is possible that, shortly after this, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth (cf. Luke 2:39-40). If so, they later returned to Bethlehem for reasons we will see in a moment. If they did return to Nazareth at this point, they likely returned to Bethlehem multiple times in the next 1-2 years, because they observed the three annual pilgrimage feasts that Jews were required to make each year (cf. Luke 2:41; Exodus 23:14-17). These required to go to Jerusalem, and they likely stayed with relatives in Bethlehem on these occasions, since Bethlehem is just 6 miles from Jerusalem.

It is also possible that they did not return to Nazareth at this time but stayed in Bethlehem for a period of as much as two years (cf. Matthew 2:16). The likely seems the more probable, for reasons we shall see. If they did stay in Bethlehem instead of returning to Nazareth, they probably continued to live with relatives. It is possible that they acquired their own house, but it was much more common in ancient Israel than it is today to have an extended family living under the same roof, especially among the poor (cf. Luke 2:24 with Leviticus 12:8).

14. Between one and two years after the birth (cf. Matthew 2:16), the magi appear in Jerusalem and ask Herod the Great where the newborn king of the Jews is to be found. They are directed to Bethlehem, and they travel there by night. They note that the star is now in the southern sky (the direction of Bethlehem from Jerusalem), and when they arrive they note that, from their perspective, the same star is above the house in a providential coincidence. They then enter the house, see the child Jesus with Mary, pay him homage, and offer gifts (Matthew 2:1-11).

This encounter could have occurred anywhere between one and two years after Jesus’ birth, given the tendency of the ancients to round up all fractions and the desire on Herod’s part to make sure he would eliminate Jesus (he would not want to have cut it close and missed the baby by a few days or months, so he would have at least rounded up and may have even padded the amount of time the magi told him).

15. The magi are warned in a dream (that night or very quickly after) to return to their country by a different route, which they then do (Matthew 2:12).

16. After they leave, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, which the Holy Family then does (Matthew. 2:13-15).

17. Some time shortly afterward, Herod realizes that the magi are not coming back and flies into a rage. He orders all the boys two years old and under who are in Bethlehem to be killed (Matthew 2:16-18). This is entirely in keeping with what we know about Herod, particularly in the latter portion of his reign. He had several of his own sons killed when he perceived them as threats, and Caesar Augustus reportedly quipped that it would be better to be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son (the joke being that, as a Jew, Herod couldn’t eat pork, so his pig would be safe; more here).

18. Herod the Great dies (this likely happened in 1 B.C. not 4 B.C.), and his sons assume full authority over the different parts of his kingdom (they likely had partial authority as co-rulers for a few years prior, as was common in the ancient world). This leaves Herod Archelaus in control of Judea.

19. In Egypt, Joseph is informed in a dream that Herod the Great is dead, and he is told to return to Israel. He and the Holy Family do so (Matthew 2:19-21).

20. Once back in Israel, Joseph is informed that Herod Archelaus is ruling in Judea in place of his father. Knowing Archelaus’s reputation, Joseph is afraid to settle in Judea (Matthew 2:22a). Joseph’s impression is confirmed by the historical record. Archelaus was a terrible ruler who was eventually removed from power by the Romans, who replaced him with a governor in A.D. 6. This is why Judea is ruled by a governor (Pontius Pilate) during Jesus’ adult ministry, rather than by one of Herod’s sons.

21. Being warned in a dream, Joseph relocates the family to its previous home in Nazareth, which, being in Galilee, is outside of Archelaus’s territory (Matthew 2:22b-23; this is likely the same relocation referred to in Luke 2:39).

22. The family continues to make the annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and when Jesus is twelve, at Passover, Jesus remains behind and his parents find him in the temple three days later (Luke 2:41-52).

So there you have it: an integration of Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives.

 

4) Why is it likely that the move from Bethlehem to Nazareth that mentioned in Luke 2:39 the same as the one mentioned in Matthew 2:22?

There are a few reasons. Before looking at them, we should set aside an impression that we—as modern readers—are likely to be misled by.

In modern biographies, we expect much more complete accounts than the ancients did. This is because of the longer lengths of books today. Our books are simply able to contain more information, and so modern authors are expected to include it.

This wasn’t nearly as easy for ancient authors, and so ancient audiences expected them to omit more and to focus more on the highlights.

Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the family later went to Nazareth, where he was raised. Those were the most important points about his infancy.

Whether they went directly from Bethlehem to Nazareth or whether they had a detour somewhere else was a matter of lesser importance that one Evangelist might choose to include where another might not.

Biblical authors were allowed to proceed from one event that they chose to incorporate to another, with or without mentioning how much time elapsed between them.

Indeed, they were allowed to arrange material in sequences other than chronology (e.g., they were allowed to arrange it by topic, since this was in an age before chronology was anywhere near as strict as it is today).

All Luke says is that the Holy Family moved to Nazareth “when [i.e., after] they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord.”

That’s true, regardless of how long after these actions they remained in Bethlehem or whether they went anywhere else before going to Nazareth.

 

5) Why, specifically, isn’t it likely that they were in Bethlehem for a pilgrimage when the magi appeared?

One reason is that the odds of the magi appearing while the Holy Family happened to be on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem is quite low.

The Old Testament laws regarding pilgrimage did not require people to be there for extended periods of time, and it would be unlikely for foreign visitors to show up during one of these periods.

Another reason is that the text may envision Joseph contemplating the idea relocating the family from Egypt to Bethlehem (or, at any rate, into Judea) until he learns that Archelaus is ruling over Judea.

This is more explainable if the Holy Family had been living in Bethlehem of Judea on an extended basis than if it had only been visiting Bethlehem for a few days.

 

6) How did the Holy Family’s moves likely proceed?

Initially, the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary in Nazareth, after which she visited the hill country of Judea for a time, before returning to Nazareth.

After an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, the two began cohabiting in Nazareth.

Then, both travelled to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.

They then remained in Bethlehem for between one and two years. Why is not discussed. It may have been initially motivated by a number of factors:

• A desire to avoid a long trip so soon after the birth
• A desire to stay in the area so that Jesus could be presented at the temple at forty days (otherwise three long trips would be needed; one to Nazareth, one back for the presentation, and then back to Nazareth again)
• The availability of help in caring for the baby by kinfolk in Bethlehem

While staying there, business opportunities then likely arose for Joseph in the area, and they either fell into or consciously decided on a longer-term relocation to Bethlehem.

They may have even decided to stay in Bethlehem precisely because of the prophesy that the Messiah would be from there. They may initially have planned to give Jesus an upbringing in Bethlehem in fulfillment of this prophecy.

Such was not necessary, however, and after the appearance of the magi, they fled to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod the Great.

Upon returning to Israel, they learned that Archelaus was ruling over Judea. Understanding the danger this posed, and Joseph being warned in a dream, the Holy Family decided to relocate to their prior home in Nazareth.

Did Jesus exist?

Discussions of this subject often begin by looking at references to Jesus in early Christian sources.

Either that or they look for references to Jesus in early non-Christian sources.

But there’s another way of looking at the question that is often ignored . . .

 

The Standard Approach

Jesus is obviously mentioned in early Christian sources, such as the gospels, the other writings of the New Testament, and the works of the early Church fathers.

Because these are Christian sources, though, their evidence is sometimes discounted, and so an appeal is made to references in early non-Christian sources that mention Jesus.

He is mentioned, for example, in the writings of a number of Roman writers who lived in the early 100s. He’s also mentioned, somewhat more controversially, in the writings of the first century Jewish historian, Josephus.

But an objection is sometimes made to these sources as well: It is suggested that they don’t represent independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, because the authors in question only know about Jesus from what they have learned from Christians.

In some cases, this may be true. In other cases, it may not be true. Some of these authors may have had access to records that conveyed information about Jesus independent of the Christian movement.

But suppose that they didn’t. Suppose that all of the information presented in these sources is ultimately derived from Christian sources.

This does not leave us at an impasse, because there is another approach to the question that we can take.

 

References to Christianity

Instead of looking, in the first instance, for references to Jesus, we can look at references to the Christian movement itself and see what we can learn about it.

Of course, the same sources that refer to Jesus tend to refer to the Christian movement. That means that we can quickly establish a number of quite early references to Christianity.

It is mentioned by:

• Suetonius, writing around A.D. 121
• Tacitus, writing around A.D. 116
• Pliny the Younger, writing in A.D. 110 or 111
• The Emperor Trajan, writing back to Pliny in A.D. 110 or 111
• And Josephus, writing around A.D. 93

The inclusion of Josephus in this list is not dependent on the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in his Antiquities 18:3:3.

Even setting aside that reference, which is partially corrupted, Josephus elsewhere refers to Jesus having followers (noting that he “was called Christ”) in a passage for which we have no evidence of manuscript corruption (Antiquities 20:9:1).

We thus have multiple references for the existence of a Christian movement that date to the end of the first century and the beginning of the second.

 

Geographical Spread

These same references indicate a considerable geographical spread for the movement.

Josephus is writing about events in Judaea, which other sources also indicate was the origin point of the movement.

But Suetonius and Tacitus write about the movement existing at Rome as well.

And Pliny the Younger indicates that it was widespread in Bithynia (in modern northern Turkey).

 

A Recent Movement

Another notable fact about the Christian movement is that it was of recent origin.

This is something also indicated by the same sources, who place its origin in the first century.

Josephus links Jesus to his “brother” James, who died in A.D. 62 (Antiquities 20:9:1).

Pliny is at a loss for how to deal with this religious movement, which is so new that the way to deal with its members is still in the process of being established (Letters 96).

Suetonius specifically says that Christians were a new movement (The Twelve Caesars: Nero 16).

And Tacitus says that Jesus was “executed during the rule of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate” (Annals 15:44).

All of this points to a first century date for the origin of the movement.

 

The Christians Agree

The earliest Christian sources agree with all this. They acknowledge that Christianity began in the first century.

This is significant, because it would not be in the early Christians’ interests to claim this.

Newness is not, on balance, a desirable trait in promoting a religion.

It is much easier to promote a religion if you can claim antiquity for it.

That’s why even religions of indisputably recent origin—including Scientology, Mormonism, and the New Age movement—invariably link themselves to some form of supposed ancient wisdom.

And the early Christians did this, pointing the origins of their movement in Judaism.

They pointed to this as a way of offsetting the fact that their movement had its particular origin just a few years earlier.

We can thus take their testimony of a recent origin as credible, for if the Christian movement had been older, they would have claimed that it was older.

 

Narrowing the Range

We can narrow the range of Christian origins further, though.

Pliny indicates that some of the people he interviewed had been Christians as many as twenty years previously. Working backward from when he was writing, that would suggest Christians in Bithynia by A.D. 90.

Tacitus and Suetonius both speak of Christians being in Rome during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), and Suetonius possibly alludes to them being there during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54; see The Twelve Caesars: Claudius 25).

When we turn to Christian sources, we find Luke indicating that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), which is most naturally taken as a reference to A.D. 28.

This is significant because all four of the gospels indicate that the Christian movement began after the ministry of John the Baptist had begun.

 

A Rapidly Spreading Movement

These sources thus allow us to discern a portrait of a rapidly spreading movement.

It apparently began in the Roman province of Judaea some time in or after A.D. 28.

It spread as far as Rome no later than A.D. 54-68 (and quite possibly earlier).

And it had spread to Bithynia no later than A.D. 90.

This portrait is derived from just a few sources. If we were to allow other first and second century sources to speak, it would be easy to show that the movement was in other places as well, including Syrian Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, and many other locations.

What we see is thus a movement that went from not existing to being dramatically spread around the Roman world in just a few decades.

This tells us something important about the early Christian movement . . .

 

It Was Organized

Movements do not spread that way unless they are organized.

This was particularly the case in the ancient world, where travel was slow, difficult, dangerous, and often expensive.

The spread of Christianity was not an accident. It was the result of a deliberate strategy of evangelization that required significant organization.

This tells us something else . . .

 

It Had Leaders

Organization requires leaders. There have to be people organizing the movement and arranging for its message to spread.

The book of Romans expresses this need from a Christian viewpoint as follows:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed?

And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?

And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?

And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? [Rom. 10:13-15].

 

Developing Organization

Early Christian writings reveal quite a bit about how the Christian movement was organized and how its organization developed during the first century of its existence.

We see it quickly being organized into local groups known as churches.

These had local officers including bishops, priests, and deacons.

The churches themselves, though, tended to be planted, especially in the early days, by individuals known as apostles and evangelists.

The sources we have—including the documents of the New Testament, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and even spurious writings like the Gnostic gospels—indicate that the earliest work was done by those officials who were called “apostles.”

The Greek term for apostle—apostolos—conveys the idea of someone who has been sent, which raises a question . . .

 

Who Did the Sending?

Movements tend to have founders—especially highly organized movements.

Any time you have a sizeable, well-organized movement, there is often a single figure at its inception who played a key role in setting it up, developing its vision, and putting in place the leaders who carried it forward.

Even in movements that form when a number of similarly-minded movements come together and merge, there is usually a single figure who takes the prime leadership role.

So when we see Christianity as a geographically diverse organization that spread remarkably quickly and had leaders known as apostles (“sent ones”) founding local congregations, it’s only natural to look at the movement and ask whether it, too, had such a founding leader.

According to the early Christians, it did, and it is here that we encounter the figure of Jesus.

 

Jesus of Nazareth

The earliest accounts we have agree that Jesus of Nazareth founded the Christian movement, recruited and trained its earliest leaders, and then sent them out as his apostles.

This is simply what you would expect of an organization that displayed the sudden appearance and growth of the Christian movement, and there is no good reason to reject the movement’s own account of its origins on this point.

The sudden appearance and rapid growth of Christianity points to a level of organization and motivation that is most naturally explained by the movement having a single, recent, and charismatic founder.

 

Not Unique to Christianity

This reasoning does not apply just to Christianity. It also applies to other movements that suddenly appear and grow quickly.

For example, it applies to Islam.

Islam did not exist prior to the early A.D. 600s, and within the first 150 years of its existence it spread dramatically, ranging all the way through North Africa, to the Middle East, to India (with a European foothold in Portugal and Spain).

That kind of expansion required organization.

In Islam’s case, the organization was political and military, but it still pointed to the existence of a single, recent, charismatic founder—Muhammad—who established the movement, provided its vision, and gave it its early organization and motivation.

 

The Reality of Jesus

You would expect a movement that began and then spread far and wide in only a few decades to have a founder, and—absent very strong evidence to the contrary—it does not make sense to reject the movement’s claim about who its founder was.

From non-Christian sources alone, we could have predicted that Christianity likely had a founder who lived some time in the first half of the first century.

When we find Christian sources agreeing with this and identifying that founder as Jesus of Nazareth, we have reason to credit this claim and to conclude: Jesus of Nazareth existed.