Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.
//Two of the four Gospels, Matthew and Luke, provide birth stories for Jesus, and both describe Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. In Luke, Jesus’ parents travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census, and have the baby there. In Matthew, they appear to be living initially in Bethlehem, and only later settle in Nazareth. The two stories differ in other fundamental ways, but they agree on the most important point: Bethlehem.
A number of noted Historical Jesus scholars, however, insist that Jesus was more likely born in Nazareth. They find the two birth stories unconvincing, and suggest that both were crafted to explain how Jesus of Nazareth somehow fulfilled the prophetic expectation of birth in David’s city of Bethlehem. Jesus was, after all, the proclaimed Messiah, the warrior figure promised through the ages, with the blood of the Hebrew hero David surging through his veins.
Enter today’s verse. John’s Gospel disagrees, and points out that Jesus’ origins are in Galilee. The “people” are troubled, knowing Jesus’ true origins, and knowing he didn’t come from Bethlehem. This is one of many places where John contradicts the other Gospels, but this is one of the more serious contradictions. So implanted is the Bethlehem birth story among Christians today that we invariably read the Johannine verse sideways; we pity the poor “people” who didn’t know the truth: That Jesus really did hail from Bethlehem! But John provides absolutely no hint of irony or contradiction in his story, and instead bolsters his argument by having the Jews say they know Jesus’ Galilean origins!
The question is, why? Why does John take such pains to point out the fallacy of the Bethlehem birth? The answer, I believe, is rooted in John’s theology of the Messiah. John is simply not interested in a Davidic warrior-type Messiah. John repeatedly compares Jesus not to David, but to Moses. John’s Gospel, written some 20-30 years after Jerusalem was leveled by the Romans, has given up on a political uprising and the restoration of the Jewish nation; he is ready to move on with his life.
I am from Milton-Freewater. But, I was born in Walla walla. How badly do some people want to find contradictions in the Bible? I am not sure about any need for the Bible to have to be perfect. But, I am sure about the need of some people to prove the Bible wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think sometimes the proper question, how desperate is the need of some people to prove the Bible is everywhere in agreement? There are many differences between John and the Synoptics, not just in details but in theology; it's sometimes hard to believe they are talking about the same Jesus. These differing opinions of the Bible's writers are, however, what make it a rich and fascinating book.
ReplyDeleteI was hopping to get to either post or agree with with the flip side also. (There is a need that gets just about crazy on both sides; One side feels it has to prove the Bible wrong. The other side feels it has to prove the Bible right.) In both regards it can get crazy. For me I just have faith. Faith does not require proof. This does not mean I do not get caught up in talking about proof either side might be bringing to the table. For me it is sad that people have such a need for proof.
ReplyDeleteI think, from my perspective, "right and wrong" is not quite the issue. Better words are "consistent and inconsistent." We are discussing whether or not Bible writers had differing opinions about Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAs you so clearly stated, that is your perspective. Perspective is what gives rise to an opinion. Everyone has a different perspective. That means that everyone has a different opinion. Therefore everyone including the Bible writers had different opinions. The better question would be: Do the Bible writers all describe the same man without contradiction? That will probably just come back to perspective and there are at least 4.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some real progress in this dialogue as two originally divergent views are settling in on some common ground that comes from shared ideas. That is always good to see, and is, I believe, the purpose of dialogue -- to discover the truth with the help of other seekers.
ReplyDeleteI liked The Dubious Disciple's article. I would like to differ with him on one point at the end of it, however. He says that the Gospel of John was written 20 to 30 years after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (in 70 A.D.) and that he "has given up on a political uprising and the restoration of the Jewish nation..." While that has been the conventional wisdom over the years about John's Gospel being written after the three Synoptic Gospels, I believe that more and more NT scholars are re-evaluating that conclusion these days. They are beginning to conclude that (except for the Prologue and conclusion) John's Gospel was written at approximately the same time as Mark's, and is therefore one of the first. He does have a different point of view and theology from the three Synoptics though. That's for sure.
Hey, thanks for contributing, Tom!
ReplyDeleteI actually believe John evolved in stages, and that some of it does predate the war. More than any other Gospel, John contains evidence of pre-war knowledge of Jerusalem and the Galilee. You agree?
I actually have a book coming out about John's Gospel in January.