Smoodock's Blog

Question Authority

Subscribe

What Was Mary and Joseph’s Hometown?

It has been claimed by many critical scholars, and for this particular study I’m particularly interested in Dan McClellen’s point of view,[1] who claim, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Mary and Joseph’s hometown was in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), because it is the first city mentioned, after the two were named in the text (Matthew…

Eddie

It has been claimed by many critical scholars, and for this particular study I’m particularly interested in Dan McClellen’s point of view,[1] who claim, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Mary and Joseph’s hometown was in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), because it is the first city mentioned, after the two were named in the text (Matthew 1:18-25; 2:1). For all intents and purposes, if all we had was Matthew’s Gospel, we would probably believe Bethlehem was their hometown. The problem that critical scholarship faces however is that we have more than one witness to Jesus’ life, and the witnesses are supposed to be read alongside one another to establish the facts. While I might want to believe the testimony of one witness, according to the Mosaic Law, the matter isn’t established as factual without another witness.

Critical scholarship loves to compare two or more witnesses and tally up all the contradictions they find, and there would be many! However, what critical scholarship doesn’t tell their readers/listeners is a “contradiction” doesn’t demand an “either/or” response, according to Collins Definitions. A contradiction may simply mean a “difference” in the text, but not necessarily an opposing fact. A good example is found in the reading between Matthew and Luke’s nativities, as that pertains to Mary and Joseph’s hometown. Matthew begins his account, showing Mary’s pregnancy is a miraculous event (Matthew 1:19-25), but he says absolutely nothing about how that occurred (Matthew 1:18), but Luke elaborates (Luke 1:26-38). Matthew seems to indicate all this occurred in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), but he doesn’t explicitly say everything he mentioned occurred there; only the birthplace is specific, but Luke elaborates (Luke 2:1-21).

So, what do we have, so far? Scholars tell us that, if all we had was Matthew’s Gospel, we would assume Mary and Joseph’s hometown was Bethlehem. On the other hand, Luke says “No! Their hometown was, actually Nazareth. What does this mean? It means, according to the understanding of how a matter is established (Deuteronomy 19:15), one cannot be dogmatic over the testimony of a single witness. Dan and critical scholarship seem to want to be very dogmatic that Mary and Joseph’s hometown is Bethlehem, according to Matthew’s narrative. However, Luke denies their proclamation, and, as far as the Bible is concerned, he is the better witness to what Matthew concludes than they are.

Here’s the problem, but Dan isn’t telling his viewers this, it really doesn’t make any difference what one concludes about Mary and Joseph’s hometown, Bethlehem or Nazareth. The fact remains, all we have is Matthew as a possible witness that it is Bethlehem. Nevertheless, the fact that he doesn’t specifically identify Bethlehem as Mary and Joseph’s hometown muddies the waters for critical scholarship. Their argument for Bethlehem being the official hometown is pretty much like Dan puts it in his video: “it’s logically possible sure; it’s certainly not plausible, and it would be laughable to call it probable much less certain.”

On the other hand, how would we evaluate Nazareth as the official hometown for Mary and Joseph? Well, if all we had was Matthew’s Gospel narrative, we’d be in the same boat as critical scholarship: “possible… not plausible… laughable to call it probable…” and certainly not certain. On the other hand, we’d have to admit that critical scholarship’s “possible” would be more “plausible” than our “possible,” IF… all we had was Matthew’s narrative. However, we do have Luke’s testimony, so I believe anyone, who practices Deuteronomy 19:15 to establish a matter as factual in the Bible, would have to agree that such a person would be able to do better by comparing Luke’s account than critical scholarship’s “possible” in viewing only Matthew’s account. Luke is the better witness than we are, 2000 years after the compiling of the Gospel narratives. Luke was there, according to the text! Therefore, our argument for Nazareth probably rises up to either “plausible” or “probable” with Luke’s testimony. Still, Luke is only one witness, but he was there, according to the text. Therefore, he’s a credible witness, but one witness doesn’t establish it as fact (Deuteronomy 19:15), so we have to settle for something less than certain. Nevertheless, our faith in the accuracy of the text is vindicated with at least a “plausible.”

______________________________________________________________

[1] See Dan’s YouTube video: “On Contradictions between Matthew & Luke’s nativities. Originally, I had posted the wrong video (I looked at dozens in this study). Thanks to Mike’s Comment below, it is now the correct video. Dan makes his announcement that, according to Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, at time marker 1:51.

.

 

2 responses to “What Was Mary and Joseph’s Hometown?”

  1. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    A thoughtful and well-reasoned post, but it overstates the case against critical scholarship (including Dan McClellan’s view) in a few places.

    First, Dan McClellan (and many biblical scholars) doesn’t claim Matthew definitively states Bethlehem as Mary and Joseph’s “hometown” in the modern sense of permanent residence before the birth. He points out that Matthew’s narrative simply places them in Bethlehem at the time of the birth (Matt 2:1), with no prior location mentioned—no travel from elsewhere is described. So if one reads Matthew in isolation, the most straightforward inference is that Bethlehem is where they were living when Jesus was born. This isn’t “dogmatic” certainty but a logical reading of the text as it stands. Scholars like McClellan emphasize this to highlight how both Gospels work to get Jesus born in Bethlehem (to fulfill Micah 5:2) despite his known association with Nazareth (“Jesus of Nazareth”).

    Luke, by contrast, explicitly starts them in Nazareth (Luke 1:26; 2:4) and has them travel to Bethlehem for the census. The two accounts differ in sequence and details: Matthew has them in Bethlehem → flee to Egypt → return and settle in Nazareth to avoid Archelaus (Matt 2:19–23); Luke has Nazareth → Bethlehem → Jerusalem (for presentation) → straight back to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).

    The post rightly notes these are differences rather than strict logical contradictions (they can be harmonized with some creativity, e.g., by positing a prior move to Bethlehem that Matthew omits, or that “house” in Matt 2:11 implies long-term residence). But critical scholars aren’t ignoring Luke—they’re observing that the infancy narratives serve theological purposes and likely developed independently. Many argue both stories are later additions or shaped traditions to address the “Bethlehem requirement” for a Davidic Messiah, while Jesus was publicly known from Nazareth.

    Appealing to Deuteronomy 19:15 (two witnesses establish a matter) is creative, but it doesn’t quite fit here. Biblical inerrantists often harmonize the accounts to affirm both, while critical scholars see them as separate theological traditions rather than courtroom-style testimonies that must align perfectly. Luke being “the better witness” because “he was there” assumes the traditional view of authorship and eyewitness status, which most critical scholars (including McClellan) question—Luke likely used sources and traditions decades later.

    Ultimately, you’re correct that neither Gospel alone makes the hometown “certain,” and combining them leans toward Nazareth as their primary home/base (with Bethlehem as birthplace). But the critical view isn’t claiming Bethlehem is “certain”—it’s arguing Matthew doesn’t require a prior Nazareth residence, and the tension reflects how early Christians reconciled Jesus’ origins with prophecy. It’s a plausible scholarly take, not a dismissal of Luke.

    Solid engagement with the texts, though—appreciate the nuance on “difference” vs. “contradiction.”

  2. Eddie Avatar
    Eddie

    Greetings Mike, and thank you for reading my blog-study and for your well thought out comment.

    Obviously, I’m going to disagree with Dan McClellan’s approach to scripture. While our worldviews may agree on some things, we’re going to disagree on some things too. He believes the “critical” approach to scripture is the best way to understand what’s going on. I don’t. I trust that John 10:35 is the proper way to read scripture. Before admitting to a contradiction/copy error, I’ll see if I can remove an ‘apparent contradiction.’ That seems to be anathema for critical scholarship, including Dan’s point of view.

    I made an error that you made me realize by saying Dan doesn’t say Matthew claims Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem. While he may not believe Mary and Joseph originally lived in Bethlehem, he does say Mathew has them living in Bethlehem and they later relocate to Nazareth. My error here was not posting the correct video: “On contradictions between Matthew & Luke’s nativities.” I’ll have to add that video in my study.

    As for Deuteronomy 19:15, I do believe the Bible is written by “witnesses”. So, I take that verse seriously. I realize critical scholars do not, but that’s okay with me. They help me look at the text in ways I normally would not, and, consequently, I am able to see things that my studies wouldn’t see without their input. This doesn’t mean I believe they have a better way to see things. Not at all. Everyone who is serious about studying the Bible has important input for the benefit of all. Nevertheless, I still see John 10:35 as the correct way to study the Bible.

    By the way, in an earlier study I have “House” as the Temple, the “House” of God. I don’t believe that’s being ‘creative’. I believe it’s paying attention to the text. In several ways modern Biblical scholarship is lazy, both critical and orthodox. If someone like me is able to find fault with both, a lot is being overlooked by all.

    One final observation, no one writes without an objective in mind. Of course, the writers of the New Testament had a theological purpose. No one ever writes without some kind of purpose, and no critic is totally unbiased. There are critics who try to be unbiased, but they only make it to ‘less’ biased than their critical colleagues, and I can’t tell you how many times in my youth that I was left hanging by apologists who thought they had the ultimate truth. Today, I trust no one, and I satisfy myself with making my own mistakes, to which I try to concede, when they’re pointed out.

    Lord bless you, my friend, :-)

Leave a comment