Matthew and Luke’s Nativity Stories…and the Maddening McClellan Disinformation Shtick

Well, it’s the Christmas season, and as to be expected, many “social media scholars” have posted material that deals with the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. One such scholar is someone I’ve written a couple of my own posts on over this past year—Dan McClellan. And so, today I thought I’d write yet another post, commenting on two recent videos he has come out with over this past week. In the first video, McClellan “takes down” the attempt of a “social media Christian apologist” who tries to argue that Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts do not, in fact, contradict each other. McClellan is going to argue, “Yes they do!” In the second video, which is really sort of a supplement to the first video, McClellan focuses solely on Luke’s nativity account and argues that Luke’s own nativity account contradicts itself—take that, Christian apologists!

Here’s my spoiler alert. The argument of the social media Christian apologist McClellan addresses is really problematic. BUT…McClellan’s rebuttal and own argument is really problematic as well. One can excuse this Christian apologist because (I’m guessing) he probably doesn’t have a Biblical Studies degree. McClellan, though, does, and that makes his woefully ignorant take on the nativity accounts even more shocking. But then again, it’s McClellan. He has a track record—it’s actually not that shocking.

In any case, sit back and enjoy. Hopefully, I’ll do much better than these two in explaining what’s going on in Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts.

An Overview of the Two Videos
In the first video, McClellan shows a clip from a Christian apologist who is addressing Bart Ehrman’s claim that Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts are irreconcilable.

• In Matthew: Joseph and Mary start in Bethlehem. After Jesus is born and the Magi visit him, they flee to Egypt for a certain amount of time to escape from King Herod the Great’s killing of all the boys two-years old and younger in Bethlehem. Then, after Herod the Great dies, they come back, but when they learn that Herod’s son Archelaus is now king in Judea, they travel up to settle in Nazareth.
• In Luke: Joseph and Mary start in Nazareth. They then travel to Bethlehem because of Caesar’s census that took place during the governorship of Quirinius in Syria. After Jesus is born (and the shepherds visit him), they go to Jerusalem to dedicate Jesus in the Temple, and then they return to Nazareth.

There you have it. On the surface, they are quite different in places. Ehrman says they seem to contradict each other. This Christian apologist, though, says, “Not so fast!” Yes, there are both similarities and differences between the two accounts, but just because one account doesn’t mention something the other account mentions, that doesn’t mean there is a denial of that event. In fact, this Christian apologist argues, both accounts very easily fit together historically.

1. Joseph and Mary start in Nazareth.
2. They travel to Bethlehem because of Caesar’s census.
3. After Jesus is born, they travel to Jerusalem to dedicate him at the Temple.
4. Then they escape to Egypt for a time until Herod the Great dies.
5. After he dies, they come back to Bethlehem, find out Archelaus is now king, and then make their way back to Nazareth. Voila! Easy!

Enter McClellan, who gives a “Not so fast yourself there, buddy!” to the Christian apologist. McClellan’s argument boils down to this: “Of course the two accounts contradict each other!” He then makes the following points:

• While Luke has Joseph and Mary start in Nazareth, travel to Bethlehem, then return to Nazareth, Matthew has them start in Bethlehem and then settle in Nazareth. There’s no hint that they ever were in Nazareth before, and there’s no hint they’re returning. In Matthew, it seems they’re setting in Nazareth for the first time—CONTRADICTION!
• The temporal conjunction in Luke 2:39 suggests that Joseph and Mary go back to Nazareth right after they dedicate Jesus at the Temple. The claim that Luke simply forgot to mention there was up to a two-year gap during which Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt strains credibility. If Luke was a good historian, such an omission would be gross negligence on his part.
• After that, McClellan mocks such attempts by Christian apologists to harmonize these two clearly contradictory accounts: “But the argument [of apologists] here is, ‘You can’t tell me it’s impossible to read months of traumatic experience, refugee status running from a king trying to take your life into the gap in between the completion of the requirements of the Law and the returning home to their own city.’”
• McClellan ends the video with a bit of a tirade against Christian apologists: “The main goal of apologetics is to convince people who already believe that they are justified in believing, and all they need is the tiniest little sliver of not impossible…I win. This is not scholarship. This is not taking the text seriously. It’s not seeking after the most likely interpretation. It’s not trying to understand the text on the author’s own terms. It’s trying to tergiversate the text, bend it to their own will, to their own ideologies and to their own dogmas, because fundamentally apologetics is about putting dogmas ahead of data.”

In the second video, McClellan argues that Luke’s own nativity account contradicts itself and is therefore not historically credible. He makes the following points:

1. In Luke 1, the pregnancies of both Elizabeth (of John the Baptist) and Mary (of Jesus) are clearly set in the days of Herod the Great. We know that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, therefore the births of both John the Baptist and Jesus would have happened before 4 BC.
2. But in Luke 2, Luke claims that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem because of the first census of Augustus Caesar while Quirinius was governor of Syria. We know that this census happened in AD 6. Quirinius was not governor of Syria at any time before 4 BC.
3. Therefore, McClellan argues, Luke’s own nativity account contradicts itself, and therefore is fiction—a literary creation, and “cannot be historical.”

What Both Social Media Guys Get Wrong (and Why I am Right!)
Let’s start with the obvious: you really cannot historically make the two nativity accounts jive with one another. The attempt to do so by this Christian apologist just doesn’t fly. Matthew (and Luke 1!) situates the birth of Jesus in the days of Herod the Great—and Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Accordingly, Jesus had to have been born prior to 4 BC (please, excuse the fact that our calendar is based on the miscalculations of the medieval monk—yes, in the Christian calendar, Jesus was probably born around 6-7 years before Christ!). But then in Luke 2, Jesus’ birth is clearly situated during the time of Caesar’s census—and that happened in AD 6. Let’s be clear: Jesus could not have been born BOTH prior to 4 BC AND in AD 6. Even if you grant the possibility that Matthew just doesn’t mention that Joseph and Mary were originally in Nazareth, or the census, and that after Luke 2:39, he just doesn’t mention the flight into Egypt and Herod’s killing of the young boys in Bethlehem (as recorded in Matthew 2:13-22—even if you grant all that as a possibility, 4 BC ain’t AD 6. You can’t get around that.

That being said, McClellan’s rebuttal to this Christian apologist is just as problematic, in that he, just like this Christian apologist, is assuming something about the nativity accounts that isn’t necessarily true. The Christian apologist comes to these accounts that they are straight up history, and then proceeds to argue a rather convoluted way that says, “Well, there is a way to make it all jive as straight up history.” Sorry, it’s not convincing. But McClellan basically comes to these accounts with the same assumption that they purport to be straight up history, and then, in light of the details, concludes that not only do Matthew and Luke contradict each other, but also that Luke contradicts itself. And therefore, what we have isn’t history, but fiction and literary creations.

So…if McClellan is right that this Christian apologist is wrong in his attempt to make the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke historically jive, then how is McClellan wrong?

He is wrong in the way he is presenting what the nativity stories actually are, and how they function within the larger context of their respective gospels. Simply put, he isn’t taking into serious consideration that these gospels are ancient historical biographies, and ancient historical biographies were written in a certain way, with certain typical features. First of all, an ancient historical biography was not necessarily trying to give a “historical documentary” kind of account. Yes, it was about a real historical figure, and yes, it would tell of the things that figure said and did, but it did so in a highly creative, literary, and artistic way. It was about history, but given in a creative, literary format. Yes, that meant the author had a certain amount of artistic license…and that doesn’t call the history of that figure into question.

Secondly, oftentimes, ancient historical biographies, as a way to set the stage for their account of that actual historical person, would include nativity accounts in which some of the key themes and points of emphases about that historical person in the historical biography would be introduced. And in doing that, again, the author would use his artistic license.

Put those two things together, it would be the equivalent of a modern movie about a historical figure or event. The movie writer and director might “invent” dialogue that gets to the heart of what was actually said by certain figures; they might move a few details and events around in order to fit better into the 2-hour movie format. Or sometimes, they might move a certain historical event a few years here or there in order to make a creative point regarding the significance of that particular historical person or event. When it comes to strict historical accuracy, a few things are fudged, but no one in their right mind really cares. We know it’s a movie and we realize that’s what often happens in movies. We don’t discount the movie’s historicity. We realize it is history, artistically presented.

This is what is going on in Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts. Historically speaking, most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was probably born in Bethlehem somewhere between 4-7 BC, and that he grew up in Nazareth. That, if you will, is the historical “bare bones” in both accounts. Beyond that, let’s be honest, no one can “prove” anything more. Still, when it comes to believability…

• If you already don’t believe in the supernatural, you’re not going to believe Gabriel visited Mary, that angels appeared to the shepherds, or that Joseph was warned in a dream. But if you don’t believe those things happened, it isn’t rooted in any contradiction; it is rooted in your presuppositional rejection of the supernatural.
• There is nothing really unusual about shepherds visiting a couple who just had a baby.
• The idea of Herod the Great sending some soldiers in the middle of the night to a small town down the road to kill certain children because he was paranoid about threats to his power is completely consistent with what we know about Herod the Great. (And Bethlehem was a very small town of only a few hundred people. It would be very easy for Herod to do something like this and kill off a handful of children).
• It also is not out of the question to suppose a small family fled out of a certain king’s jurisdiction for a time. Again, people around the world flee from danger every day.
• As for the Magi seeing “the star,” we do know that three times in 7 BC there was a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter within the constellation of Pisces that was visible in the Middle East (May 29, September 30, December 5), and that conjunction was understood to be associated the Jewish Messiah.

The real historical sticking point is Luke’s claim that Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem because of Caesar’s census during Quirinius’ governorship. That is the real cause of contention. This is just my opinion, but I think that Luke, in the spirit of other ancient historical biographies, is purposely juxtaposing Jesus’ birth with Caesar’s census because one of the main themes he emphasizes in his gospel is that Jesus is Lord…not Caesar. He sets up that contrast in his nativity account by placing Jesus’ birth during the census. Now, I do not think Luke was a negligent historian. In Luke 1, he clearly says it happened in the days of Herod the Great; therefore, when he mentions the census in Luke 2, I think it is artistic license.

Likewise, one of the main themes in Matthew’s gospel is that Jesus is the king of Israel…not Herod. That is why he includes the Magi searching for a newborn king of the Jews, and that is why he mentions Herod’s attempt to kill the baby Jesus.

Now, someone might ask, “If Luke made up the census story, then why couldn’t Matthew have made up the stories of the Magi and of Herod’s killing of the boys in Bethlehem?” My answer is simple: First, Luke didn’t “make up” the census story. There really was a historical census that happened in AD 6. For thematic, creative purposes, he associated it with Jesus’ birth in his nativity account to make a point about who Jesus is. Does that mean Jesus wasn’t actually born during the actual census? Probably not—but who cares? If you understand what ancient historical biographies do, you realize it is really no different than a historical movie that moves a few historical events around to make a larger point in the movie.

Secondly, there is nothing historically unbelievable about the possibility of astronomers from Mesopotamia recognizing a “star” and then traveling to Jerusalem, and the idea of Herod trying to kill any and all perceived threats is entirely consistent with who we know him to be.

Maybe Joseph and Mary weren’t originally living in Nazareth. Maybe they moved there from Bethlehem after Herod the Great died. I don’t care. I don’t think that calls the integrity of the nativity accounts into question because I don’t think they are trying to give a “newspaper-style account of ‘just the facts’” about Jesus’ birth. If you understand Luke’s (and Matthew’s) thematic emphases about who Jesus is in their respective gospels, you will understand what they’re doing in their nativity accounts. And if they use artistic license to do it, what’s the problem?

All That Said, This is Why McClellan Irritates Me
What I’ve just banged out in a few minutes helps make sense of what both Matthew and Luke are doing in their nativity accounts and helps the reader understand them better. To do that shouldn’t be too hard for anyone who has any kind of education and training in Biblical Studies. That’s not what McClellan does, however. In truth, that’s not what he ever really does in any of his videos.

Yes, in this instance, he correctly shows why this Christian apologist isn’t convincing. Fine. But he doesn’t do what a competent Biblical scholar should do…and actually explain the text and enlighten its meaning for the reader (or watcher of his videos). I can guarantee you that the typical response of most of McClellan’s followers to this video (as with most of his videos) is something like this: “Preach, Dan! Those Christian apologists are DUMB! They’re bad! Idiots! Dan is right! It’s all just fiction, nothing more! We can dismiss it all! Thanks Dan, for exposing such crap!”

But McClellan hasn’t explained anything. He never does. That’s why I think he’s a charlatan who profits off of angry atheists and disgruntled ex-Christians. And that’s what makes his concluding comments so hilariously pathetic. Again, here is what he says: “This is not scholarship. This is not taking the text seriously. It’s not seeking after the most likely interpretation. It’s not trying to understand the text on the author’s own terms. It’s trying to tergiversate the text, bend it to their own will, to their own ideologies and to their own dogmas, because fundamentally apologetics is about putting dogmas ahead of data.”

The ironic thing is that McClellan isn’t taking the text seriously either. McClellan is not seeking after the most likely interpretation. He doesn’t even try to explain what the text means in the first place. And McClellan is not trying to understand the text on the author’s own terms. Again, he makes no reference to authorial intention at all, so how can he claim he’s trying to understand the text on the author’s own terms?

And the ironic thing about that is that McClellan routinely insists that texts have no inherent meaning. Just a week ago, in a video entitled, “Why is it so hard to read the Bible with fresh eyes?” he claimed that very thing. He dismisses the notion that one can extract meaning from the biblical text because the biblical text has no inherent meaning. For McClellan, reading is a “process of creating meaning with the text, because the texts are just collections of scribbles, or bumps on a page, or soundwaves, or light bouncing off of hand signals.” Therefore, what readers do is to try to convert those things into “semantic content” that is in agreement with different groups of people—and therefore those meanings can be different from group to group and time to time. And therefore, every time we read a text, “we construct meaning all over again.”

What that means is that McClellan isn’t interested in authorial intent. He doesn’t think it is possible to get at it. Now, it is true, that reading the Bible (or any text for that matter) is a “creative” act, in a sense. I see things in a T.S. Eliot poem that I’ve never seen before. And I sometimes see things in a particular biblical passage that I hadn’t seen before. But when that happens, I’m still trying to understand what that author/writer is trying to communicate. What governs my reading is trying to understand authorial intent. Any creative insight I might have in a text stems from that very thing. That is what “taking the text seriously” and “on the author’s own terms” looks like.

But McClellan never does that. He spends his time ripping apart the (often admittedly) bad claims regarding the Bible of certain people, but he never contributes anything useful to understanding the biblical text. He doesn’t explain; he doesn’t enlighten. He does the exact same kind of thing he accuses those apologists of doing—not taking the text seriously and not understanding the author on his own terms. McClellen twists biblical passages to his own will, to serve his own ideology and dogmas, because, despite his claim, he’s not just about “following the data.” He doesn’t give a damn about the actual data or about trying to understand what the biblical authors are actually trying to communicate.

His entire shtick is a postmodern dogma that seeks to tear down any and all claims of actual meaning and yes, destroy the biblical text.