People often suggest that Joseph lived in Nazareth at the time of the opening verses of Luke 2 and that his only relationship with Bethlehem was one of distant ancestry. In a post several years ago, I explained why Luke probably wasn't saying that the census in Luke 2 required people to go to their places of ancestry, much less distant ancestry. When considering Joseph's relationship with Bethlehem in general, we can go beyond the census account, though that account is part of the evidence that needs addressed. Here are several reasons for thinking Joseph's relationship with Bethlehem was more than ancestral:
- Roman censuses in general weren't ancestral. That's evidence against an ancestral nature for the census of Luke 2.
- Luke 2:3 says nothing about ancestry. It implies that Bethlehem was Joseph's "own city". We wouldn't normally take that unqualified phrase as qualified by ancestry or ancestry going back to the time of David. Rather, the most natural reading of Luke 2:3 is that Bethlehem was Joseph's place of residence. The reference to Davidic ancestry in verse 4 need only be one reason among others why Joseph and/or his family were in Bethlehem, a reason Luke wanted to highlight for his purposes. It doesn't follow that the census required Joseph or anybody else to go back to a place of distant ancestry. Reading the comment about Davidic ancestry back into verse 3, as if it was a census requirement, is dubious.
- The Protevangelium Of James, the earliest source I'm aware of to comment on the topic, suggests a non-ancestral census. It refers to how "there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled". It refers to "all in Bethlehem", with no reference to ancestry, implying that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was "in Bethlehem".
- The length of time spent in Bethlehem suggests more than being there for a census registration. The last we'd heard of Jesus and his family in Luke 1 was in verse 56. Mary was only about three months into her pregnancy at the time. The most straightforward way to interpret the references to the family in chapter 2 is that Luke is picking up where he left off in 1:56. Furthermore, given the problematic nature of a premarital pregnancy, they'd be likely to want the wedding to occur sooner rather than later. The common notion that they didn't go to Bethlehem until Mary was on the verge of giving birth is highly unlikely. They probably went there when she was close to three months into the pregnancy, meaning that they likely spent at least around half a year in Bethlehem. That's too long for merely registering for a census.
- Joseph and Mary are referred to as engaged in verse 5. They're living together in verse 7. Most likely, they got married upon their arrival in Bethlehem. The wedding seems to have occurred in Bethlehem, which makes more sense if there was more than an ancestral relationship with the town.
- In Luke 2, Joseph and Mary seem to be staying in the guest room of a house in Bethlehem, not somewhere like an inn, a public shelter, or an independent cave (a cave attached to a house being a different matter, to be distinguished from an independent cave). See Stephen Carlson's discussion of the evidence pertaining to Luke's account here. Similarly, Matthew 2:11 refers to a house, and Matthew seems to have them there much later, somewhat close to when Jesus was two years old (Matthew 2:16). Such a long stay in a house makes more sense if they were there for more than a census registration and had more than an ancestral connection to the town.
- Matthew also has Joseph wanting to return to Judea after the family's time in Egypt (Matthew 2:22), which makes more sense if more than an ancestral relationship was involved.
I agree. I would add that they appear to stay in Bethlehem for a while (unspecified, but possibly some time) after Jesus' birth until the arrival of the Magi. They don't seem to be in a hurry to get back to Nazareth.This together with Matt. 2:22, which you note, suggests that they had actually thought of living in Bethlehem after Jesus' birth. And notice too that when Joseph decides *not* to settle in Judea, he specifically chooses Nazareth to go to instead. In other words, both Luke and Matthew suggest connections on the part of Joseph and/or Mary with both Nazareth and Bethlehem.
ReplyDeleteSo much of the confusion comes out of the popular idea that Joseph and Mary arrived at Bethlehem, just in the nick of time, to give birth to Jesus. There was no vacant room at a commercial inn, implying that Jesus would have been placed in a manger/feeding trough in a nearby stable or cave.
ReplyDeleteRather, Joseph and Mary traveled down to Bethlehem, and in a span of some weeks or months registered for the census and got married (in the presence of Joseph's family). There wasn't enough space ("no room") in the kataluma (upper room/spare room/guest room, maybe even a newlywed suite built onto a house) for Mary to give birth, so she gave birth in the larger downstairs space of the house where animals were lodged at night (and had the manger/trough).
This resolves 3 issues that critical scholars have raised:
1. That Joseph would not have been required to return to his ancestral home for a Roman census. He was, rather, returning to his primary residence after some time residing (for work as a tekton?) in Galilee, where he was betrothed to Mary.
2. That Matthew and Luke contradict on Mary's status as betrothed or married when Jesus was born. Rather, Luke says that Mary was betrothed when they set out for Bethlehem, and Matthew asserts they were married before Jesus was born (at a wedding after they arrived in Bethlehem, before Jesus was born).
3. That Mary would not have had to travel with Joseph for a Roman census. Rather, they weren't going to Bethlehem just for the census, but also to be married in the presence of Joseph's family. Moreover, the Matthean narrative strongly suggests they intended to remain there (as was already noted by others). Returning to Bethlehem was plan B after Egypt.