# Did Jesus Fulfill Prophesy?  ## Episode metadata - Episode title: Did Jesus Fulfill Prophesy? - Show: Data Over Dogma - Owner / Host: Daniel McClellan and Daniel Beecher - Episode publish date: 2025-12-15 - Episode AI description: The podcast delves into the intriguing claims surrounding Jesus' birth and the alleged fulfillment of over 300 prophecies. It critically examines how translations and interpretations of ancient texts, like Isaiah, shaped the nativity narrative. The hosts role-play responses to apologetic challenges, discussing the differing accounts of Matthew and Luke. They also analyze the historical accuracy of events, including the controversial census under Herod. In the end, they argue that the claims of prophetic fulfillment are more about narrative construction than factual evidence. - Mentioned books: [The Bible Says So](https://share.snipd.com/book/a0b9a249-0904-4ce3-b0d7-6000458cd9b3) by [Dan McClellan](https://share.snipd.com/person/25209d25-3415-4657-89e2-eb3b0f8104cb) - Duration: 01:12:10 - Episode URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/episode/dfcfc7d9-8c4f-403a-9791-b9b8acef63d6) - Show URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/show/8153b1cc-d781-49fd-92d5-a4bef70d1be5) - Export date: 2026-02-17T23:35:46 ## Snips ### [Isaiah 7:14 Reinterpreted](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5eb47183-2a2e-4c8d-86cd-8abda69ce021) 🎧 08:18 - 12:56 (04:37) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/bf319e3a-d39e-4b9f-88b9-32bbf4c54ebd" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Isaiah 7:14 is often mistranslated as “virgin” but Hebrew alma likely means “young woman,” changing the prophecy’s meaning. - Matthew reshapes Isaiah via the Septuagint to support a later theological claim about Jesus’ origins. #### 💬 Quote > Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Isaiah, yeah. We're doing **Dan Beecher:** Isaiah 7, 14. Is that the one we're doing right now? **Dan McClellan:** Right. So this is coming from probably the second half of the 8th century BCE. And a lot of whether or not this seems like a prophecy is going to come down to how it's translated. And the way the good doctor, the translation that the good doctor has here is, therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel. Which, by the way, we've mentioned this before, but it really blows **Dan Beecher:** my mind how willing they are to throw this one out there, like right out the chute, right out the gate. When we know that his name was not called Emmanuel. Yeah. That, like, forget the virgin thing. We're going to get to the virgin thing. I get that. But what the heck is going on with the Emmanuel part? **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, it's not like it was his middle name. Jesus Emmanuel Christ. **Dan Beecher:** No. Mary was like, Jesus Emmanuel Christ, you get down here and clean your room. Yeah, Mom, okay. No, it's... Yeah, that's so weird to me that they trot that one out. But okay. **Dan McClellan:** Well, and there's a reason for that. If you look in, because it's quoted in Matthew 1, I think it's in the 20s somewhere. 123. 123. Okay. Matthew So I've got a few different translations in front of me. The King James Version says, And they shall call his name Emmanuel. Now, if you'll notice in Isaiah 7.14, it doesn't repeat, or it doesn't give us a subject because it's still being governed by the subject, the virgin. Right. Shall call his name. So the mom is going to name him Emmanuel according to Isaiah 7, 14. Once we get to Matthew, it's no longer the mom who's naming him. Right. What it says is they shall call his name Emmanuel, which sounds like this unnamed they may not be the parents. It may be that the followers of Jesus will refer to him as if he were God among us. So it's kind of... As if. Point of order. The author is kind of massaging things a little bit. Right. I get **Dan Beecher:** that. Point of order. And yet it says, shall call his name, even in Matthew, his name, Emmanuel. It doesn't say, shall call him the Emmanuel. Shall refer to him by title of Emmanuel. And by the way, no one ever does, right? No one calls him Emmanuel. **Dan McClellan:** Not in the New Testament. But we don't need exactness here. And this is one of the things that apologists will sometimes say. Prophe are vague. And that just makes them more true. It's not like they're intentionally vague so that they can be shellacked over a variety different contexts. So I think the way that you can get around people going well wait a minute his name's not Emmanuel I mean in the same chapter you say his name's going to be Jesus so yeah this is one of the one of the fudgy ways to get around the fact that this prophecy doesn't seem to be quite on target But that's a change that is introduced in the way that Matthew quotes Isaiah 7.14. But Isaiah 7.14 is being mistranslated here as well, because it does not say the virgin shall conceive. If you go look into the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, you go look in the NRSVUE, you go look in a variety of different translations, and it will use the words young woman, because the Hebrew is Alma, which means young woman of marriageable age. And it doesn't let you know whether or not it is in the future or in the past, because it's using an adjective, which means pregnant. And so it's just saying ha-al ha-ra, and then you have to provide the to-be verb. And so you could technically say, well, I want it to be in the future. And that's what the Septuagint does in the Greek translation. --- ### [Virgin Birth As Later Development](https://share.snipd.com/snip/06fde65e-8ad1-4c5e-8729-648c0e85a329) 🎧 15:24 - 18:47 (03:22) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/ce15e257-05b3-40e2-882f-3e19b9dbed3b" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The virgin birth likely developed later as authors pushed Jesus’ divine origin earlier in the narrative tradition. - Paul and Mark lack origin stories, suggesting nativity details are secondary additions. #### 💬 Quote > Paul and Mark say nothing about Jesus's origins, except that Paul says, you know, he was born of a woman. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on origins in Paul and Mark #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And it should be noted that this notion that there's a virgin birth is widely agreed to be a posthumous secondary accretion to the Jesus tradition where you're starting to get sensitivities to the origins of Jesus. Like Paul and Mark say nothing about Jesus's origins, except that Paul says, you know, he was born of a woman, but great. Happened to most of us. Really sets him apart there. Yeah. So there's nothing significant about his origins until we get to the later Gospels, where they begin to push the divinity of Jesus's origins further and further back in time. And so the virgin birth probably developed as sensitivities about the, you know, just the nature of, of sexual desire and sexual intercourse is, is leading people to, to want to distance the divine Messiah from, uh, from kind of a natural birth. And, and we talked about the, the immaculate conception, like that's just, that's just the further teasing out of those concerns. And so part **Dan Beecher:** of me wondered if it was, if the virgin birth, because I get that there were all of these new sort of sexual mores and a little bit of, you know, conservative ideas of sexual impropriety creeping in or what, you know, in this moment in history. But also, could it be that it was just who the author of Matthew was trying to square this idea of the, I think I remember you saying something about the Septuagint having, taking the Hebrew of Isaiah and then making it the word virgin. Is that right? So could Matthew just be trying to square it with that prophecy as he's writing it? I don't think it is solely a result of **Dan McClellan:** the translation of Alma as Parthenos. I think that contributes. I doubt that that is the sole reason. I doubt that the author was just like, look, it says Parthenos, I gotta do something about that. Okay. Because, you know, it calls Dinah Parthenos in the Septuagint after she has been violated. Okay. So, like, and I have a friend named Rodrigo de Jesusa, who wrote a wonderful paper, published 15, 10, 15, no, 2008. So 17 years ago, entitled, Is the Choice of Parthenos Theologically Motivated in LXX Isaiah 714, or something like that. And talks about the fact that that word had some semantic fuzziness to it even back then. And it may have just been kind of like, yeah, it works. And so the author of Matthew, I think, is probably a combination of factors. And then the author of the Gospel of Luke, I think, is probably picking up that football and running with it, writing as they are after. And the nativity account in Luke chapters 1 and 2, I think, is probably even later than the rest of Luke. I think it's a secondary addition to the Gospel of Luke as well. --- ### [Read Gospel Citations Contextually](https://share.snipd.com/snip/e4183d69-f1eb-4a5e-a539-8c64721df08c) 🎧 23:55 - 26:45 (02:49) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/6ed1f054-8fed-4331-b759-62ff077d3cf7" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Treat Gospel authors as engaging in interpretive traditions like Midrash when assessing prophecy citations. - Avoid taking Matthew's uses of Hebrew scriptures as literal ancient predictions without context. #### 💬 Quote > Midrash comes from darash, which means to seek. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining Midrash and interpretive practice #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** But like, what is a Midrash and how do you clear it up? **Dan McClellan:** Is it a cream? What do you use? Well, midrash comes from darash, which means to seek. And it's an approach to Scripture that tries to uncover significance and meaning that is really that is relevant to the reader and the person engaging the text. And so I think there is a sense in which it is certainly engaging in a very dynamic, interpretive, hermeneutic practice that is related to Midrash. I would hesitate to say that the authors were like, I'm going to do Midrash on this. And so, I don't think that's illegitimate. I don't know that if I were writing about this that I would choose to focus on that. **Dan Beecher:** But yeah, I think that fits. You're in a fight with Dr. GPT. That's **Dan McClellan:** all I'm saying. I get in fights with Dr. ChatGPT all the time. Yeah, **Dan Beecher:** as well you should. As well you should. Don't trust ChatGPT, kid. Straight out the barrel. Get yourself a Dan. And then, and then, I mean, I guess what, what chat GPT said was that the mid rash, the reason it said that it was a mid rash was it would, it claimed that it was normal as a Jewish interpretive technique to, to sort of take older, older scripts and, and twist them and play with them and sort of expound on them and whatever. Yeah. And so, and so to take an old prophecy that doesn't actually apply to this and then just sort of apply it would have been understood at least at the time to have been a, not, this is the absolute fulfillment of this prophecy, but like at this echo to something in the past or something. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, and I think there's truth to that. Obviously, we've already talked about how the Septuagint is fiddling with the rendering itself. Right. And so, yeah, absolutely it is following in the footsteps of other Greco-Roman Jewish interpretive practices. In that sense, it's not an outlier. Now, to the degree I would agree with the notion that everybody knew and it was transparently just, this is how we play with the text, we're not taking it seriously. I don't know about that. i think that and and um i there's a there's an argument to be had there uh --- ### [Micah 5 Recast For Messiah](https://share.snipd.com/snip/77608886-c25a-47ef-9256-7dcefacb1e5e) 🎧 28:14 - 29:30 (01:16) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/6715d1da-8893-4fcf-a47b-1c628d5cc06d" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Micah 5:2 originally addresses a pre-exilic Israelite ruler, not a birth 700 years later. - Matthew and Luke craft different routes to Bethlehem to align Jesus with Micah’s expectation. #### 💬 Quote > You, O Bethlehem of Ephratah... from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining Micah 5 and Gospel adaptation #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** For from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. That's Matthew 2, 6. And this is obviously riffing on Micah 5, 2, which I can just pull it up here real quick, is a prophecy that says, well, it starts in 5, 1, doesn't it? It depends on how you divide this up. But you, O Bethlehem of Ephratah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. So that's the messianic prophecy as it came to be understood by the time of the New Testament from Micah 5. Now, in the original context, this is probably pre-exilic, and the expectation is that there is an Israelite king, probably from the line of David, who is going to arise and rule the people and lead the people. there are a lot of details about what's going on in there that are still hotly debated by scholars, but nobody thinks this is actually about somebody who's going to be born 700 years later. --- ### [Laments Turned Into Fulfillment](https://share.snipd.com/snip/693cb92c-3c3c-467e-99c4-6683fa1ba711) 🎧 32:57 - 35:39 (02:42) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/04bc9d6f-19d8-42c1-b077-e1aa41491c26" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Matthew treats lament and historical texts (Jeremiah, Hosea) as prophetic fulfillment by reapplying past passages to Jesus’ story. - Many cited ‘fulfillments’ are resonances, not original prophecies about the Messiah. #### 💬 Quote > A voice was heard in Ramah... Rachel weeping for her children... > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Matthew quoting Jeremiah and Hosea #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** What? How dare you? So we go down to Matthew 2, verse 18, and we have Herod, the slaughter of the innocents. Yes. Not a part of Luke. **Dan Beecher:** And that one feels like a pretty strong oversight. That one feels like, ooh, Luke, come on, man. What are you doing? Yeah. And the **Dan McClellan:** reason all these prophecy fulfillment things are in Matthew is because Matthew was the one who was like, we got to have him fulfilling all these prophecies, more prophecies, more prophecies. And so... Well, **Dan Beecher:** and he often is like overtly says, and this fulfilled the prophecy of X. Right. He was being very overt about the whole thing. Yeah, one of the main rhetorical **Dan McClellan:** goals of the Gospel of Matthew is to show how thoroughly and comprehensively Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy from the Hebrew Bible, even if it's not an actual prophecy from the Hebrew Bible. Okay. So here in Matthew 2.18, we get a quote, A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping in loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children, she refused to be comforted because they are no more. And this is from Jeremiah 31. And this is about the exile. It's just a lament. Right. And this is something that happens quite a bit in the Gospels, where they take something that is lamenting something that has already happened, and they flip it. And they say, oh, this is about the future. This is about this thing that just happened. And this is about Jesus. And so obviously this is about Herod killing all the innocent people in Bethlehem because Ramah is not by Bethlehem. So like Bethlehem is like six miles south of jerusalem rama is like six miles north of jerusalem so well **Dan Beecher:** someone was that weeping and lamentation was loud yeah it was a very loud lamentation yeah so uh **Dan McClellan:** probably not that one's not as much of a bullseye as uh as the others also weren't. It's a slant prophecy. And then just a few verses before that, we have, because of Herod's slaughtering of the innocent, we have Joseph and Mary grabbing Jesus and running off to Egypt. And then we have, out of Egypt I have called my son, which is another non-prophecy that comes from the book of Hosea, chapter 11, verse the first. And that is, when Israel was a child, I loved him. And out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me. They kept sacrificing to the balls and offering incense to idols. --- ### [Crafting Story To Fit Prophecy](https://share.snipd.com/snip/21104631-a6ae-4771-9fd7-49dbec5b0cdc) 🎧 38:36 - 43:18 (04:42) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/91494382-b78d-4012-ab05-e6ff96d27d45" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Matthew composes a complex narrative (Egypt flight, return, Nazareth settlement) to force prophetic fulfillments. - The data better support Jesus being from Nazareth than born in Bethlehem. #### 💬 Quote > The data don't support the conclusion that Jesus actually fulfilled these prophecies. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan summarizing Matthew’s motivations #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Guess what? Prophecy. Along the way. And **Dan Beecher:** I just had to look it up and remind myself, Nazareth is way up north. It's like 150 kilometers north of **Dan McClellan:** Jerusalem. And Bethlehem is like right next to Jerusalem. It's like six kilometers or miles. I forget which one. Six the number, though. South, southwest, just barely a little bit west of Jerusalem. Okay. Yeah. So if you're standing in a high point in Jerusalem, you can just make out one of the hilltops of Bethlehem if you're looking south. And you know what to look for. Yeah. So, and then we got an interesting one, that God warned Joseph in a dream not to go back Judea, so instead he took Mary and Jesus to Nazareth and Galilee, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. And what I think is interesting here is, and this is another reason to think that Matthew does not have Joseph and Mary in Nazareth prior to Bethlehem, is if this prophecy is that he would be called a Nazarene, why didn't Matthew say, so they went home? He has this decision to go to Nazareth, and that decision is what ultimately fulfills this prophecy, which does not seem to be motivated by any kind of previous connections to this place at all. But the problem is, there's no part of the Hebrew Bible that says he would be called a Nazarene. So that's a reference **Dan Beecher:** to a prophecy that we have no knowledge of. Well, **Dan McClellan:** and there are two ways that this has traditionally been answered, and one is more common these days than the other. One is that he would, Nazarene is really supposed to be like Nazarite. Okay. And those **Dan Beecher:** two things are not even related conceptually. Is that right? They are **Dan McClellan:** not related conceptually. However, the way they are written in Greek transliteration is very close together. Right. So, but they, like, there's nothing in the Hebrew Bible that says the Messiah would be a Nazarite either. Right. And the other thing is that it could be something from Isaiah 11 one, which talks about a shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And Jesse is David's father. So it's And it just so happens that the word for the branch shall grow out of his roots is netzer. And so the claim is that Isaiah 11.1 basically says the Messiah will be a netzer or a Nazarene, if you like. So it's still squinting at this pretty hard to try to make a connection there. But it might be that Matthew was like, we got to have a prophecy here. Come on, let's find something. And they were like, netzer? He like, I can work with that. I can work with that. Let's do Nazarene. That sounds like he's from Nazareth. It's also possible **Dan Beecher:** that there was just a Nazarene prophecy going around that just wasn't, that we don't have or whatever. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, it could have been something that they were like, this is the agrafa, the unwritten prophecy. Or it could be something that was in some text that we just don't have anymore, that at that time the author of the Gospel of Matthew was like, I can buy that being scripture. So what we have in Matthew is a series of things that really apart from just the identification of Nazareth and the identification of Bethlehem are not in Luke. Yeah. Where Matthew is telling the story in their own unique way to have Jesus fulfilling these prophecies. And the data don't support the conclusion that Jesus actually fulfilled these prophecies. The data, I would argue, don't even indicate he was born in Bethlehem. I think most likely he was probably born in Nazareth. And then long after he died, people were like, who's going to stop us from saying he was born in Bethlehem? We can say whatever we want. You, the president? They were just like, yeah, we can have him born in Bethlehem. --- ### [Silence Suggests Later Nativity Additions](https://share.snipd.com/snip/56231214-b21a-4500-9cf1-e85da1bddfbe) 🎧 53:31 - 56:05 (02:34) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/d4adfe9f-13f3-427b-a124-c8657d2a992f" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Bethlehem’s absence from Paul, Mark, and the rest of the Gospels suggests the nativity accounts were later additions. - Once Jesus’ ministry starts, origins vanish from narrative focus, signaling later origin storytelling. #### 💬 Quote > There are only three places where the word Bethlehem ever occurs in all of the New Testament. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Bethlehem’s limited NT presence #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Okay, so we're going to start with the fact that the Bethlehem story is likely a secondary addition to the Jesus tradition. We've already talked about some of the reasons why. Right. But one of them is the fact that it's never even mentioned in the letters of Paul or in the Gospel of Mark. Bethlehem only ever occurs in Matthew's nativity account, Luke's nativity account, and John's reference to the prophecy of the Messiah coming from Bethlehem. **Dan Beecher:** Aha. This, my friend, is the fallacy of the argument from silence. Yes. Just because they didn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. means not paying attention to important things. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** And you know what? I think of all the stuff we're going to go through, this probably is like the least illegitimate because there is a degree to which it is an argument from silence. Now, there is a point that a lot of people will make. An argument from silence is not a fallacy if we should have it, if we should expect to see it, if they should have mentioned it. And I think that that is not necessarily true, at least of the writings of Paul, because Paul's not really about his temporal life. We have a passing reference to him being born of a woman, but that's serving a more theological point. Well, and Paul's not even claiming **Dan Beecher:** to have met Jesus. Right. **Dan McClellan:** Whereas these gospel authors, **Dan Beecher:** at least if the authorship attribution were correct, we would be assuming that the authors had actually met and hung out with Jesus. Yes. **Dan McClellan:** Now, Mark is supposed to have just been the interpreter for Peter, so he not necessarily knew stuff. Luke is doing all this investigating. So to a degree, yeah, we would expect them to have hung out with them. So it is true that that's a bit of an argument from silence. Mark, I think you would expect some kind of reference to this. But what's interesting is, even just outside of the nativity accounts of both Matthew and Luke. They never refer to Jesus having come from Bethlehem. It's always Jesus of Nazareth. And scholars think that the nativity account in Luke is a secondary addition, and there are even scholars who think the nativity account in Matthew is a secondary addition. --- ### [Cross-Check Gospel Narratives](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d0463640-b95b-42dd-986d-2fc12706682b) 🎧 59:52 - 01:02:52 (02:59) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/9feb5aa0-c1ec-40fc-9faa-fdfdd830def2" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Compare narrative details (flight to Egypt vs. peaceful return) across Matthew and Luke to test historical plausibility. - Question improbable editorial omissions like Luke failing to mention Herod’s massacre if it had occurred. #### 💬 Quote > That is pretty criminal neglect to leave out that detail. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan criticizing Luke's omission of the massacre #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Matthew has Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem until they flee to Egypt to escape Herod's killing of the innocents and only returning to settle in Nazareth after Herod's death Luke 239 has them peacefully returning to Nazareth after they fulfill the legal requirements related to Jesus's birth in other words Luke does not seem to know that they were literally chased out of the country by the king and then forced to reside in another country before returning to Nazareth. Right. And here the objection is the obvious thing. It's just, **Dan Beecher:** well, it doesn't preclude the possibility that the slaughter of the innocents happened and they went into **Dan McClellan:** Egypt. **Dan Beecher:** It just doesn't mention it. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, and this is the same kind of thing as earlier where you take these incongruities and suggest that it's just a dealer's choice. The author could have said something but just decided not to but again in in this case that **Dan Beecher:** is thought he was running long he was like gosh you know i when just started this story but one needs to use the editorial mind uh when one if you want to craft an interesting story yeah **Dan McClellan:** and and my argument would be that is pretty criminal neglect to leave out that detail. Yeah. It's **Dan Beecher:** such a strong detail too. That's juicy. That's a juicy part of the story. **Dan McClellan:** Oh yeah. Big time. And just chronologically, it doesn't seem to work because in Matthew, says uh says when did the star appear and then goes and uh has everyone two years and under killed which suggests that this is taking place two years after jesus's birth so jesus is like maybe almost two years old if not two years old when this is happening and still in Bethlehem. And still in Bethlehem. So another indication that they lived in Bethlehem in Matthew. But in Luke, it says that they had to present them at the temple. And when all was fulfilled, they returned to their own city or their own town in Nazareth. And then it says they visited Jerusalem at the Passover every year. That does not allow for, one, them to flee to Egypt until Herod dies. does not allow for them to be a persona non grata in Jerusalem for however long. It does not allow them to still be around in two years when Herod is on the lookout. And it also suggests that they were free to come back once a year. --- ### [Census Account Is Problematic](https://share.snipd.com/snip/17dc78ce-d7b7-4b3b-b6ee-eaf65a2cd10f) 🎧 01:03:20 - 01:07:32 (04:11) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/2caec4bf-fdff-4af6-9378-fb667e85bd8d" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Luke's census story (going to ancestral hometown) conflicts with Roman administrative practice and practical logistics. - The Greek wording in Luke later calls Nazareth Joseph’s 'own town,' undermining the census explanation. #### 💬 Quote > Everyone went to his own city, which suggests hometown rather than ancestral hometown. > — Dan Beecher Dan Beecher challenging Luke's census claim #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And the point to make here is that Rome would not have issued a census requiring everyone return to their ancestral hometown to register because that one wouldn't be possible for many people, would nuke the economy for months, and would give the Romans utterly useless information. The whole point of the census is who's living and working where, so we can tell the people who are governing that place, this is how much we want from you in taxes. So the notion that you would just go wherever you were from to register is just bafflingly just asinine, just ahistorical. That would not have happened. Excuse me, Dr. McClellan, but I do **Dan Beecher:** believe that you are- If is your real name. If that's from an accredited university, that doctorate of yours. But I do think that if you went to the British Museum and looked up P. London 904, the papyrus 904, you would see very clearly that there was a Roman edict that read, Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt, says, enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who, for any cause whatsoever, are outside their gnomes or territories, to return to their domestic hearth or home that they may accomplish the customary dispensation of enrollment and continue steadfastly in the husbandry that belongs to them. Mm, yes. So, ha-ha! They were, wait a minute, **Dan McClellan:** I think I see the problem of my own argument. Yes, and that would be that this says nothing about ancestral homestead or hometown. It says your hearth. And this is talking about returning home precisely because people traveled. People traveled for work. People traveled for pleasure. And if they're doing a census, they want to know where you live or where your job is. Yeah, where's your hearth? Get to your hearth. Get to the hearth. Olly olly oxen free. We need you back at your hearth. And this is unrelated to the notion that this census would require Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. And the text says that he went down to Bethlehem because he was of or descended from the house and the lineage of David. It's not saying that's where he lived. It's saying that's where he descended from ancestrally. He was of that ancestral hometown. A point of order. Luke 2, 3 says **Dan Beecher:** that everyone went to his own city, which suggests hometown rather than ancestral hometown. Boom, you got schooled. **Dan McClellan:** Yes, it does say they all went to their own towns to be registered in verse 3. And then it says, Joseph went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea to the city of David called Bethlehem because he was descended from the house and family of David. So here's the interesting thing When you go all the way down to where it says they went home, which is, I think, Luke 2, is it 39? Yes. when they had finished everything required by the law of the lord so so this is that um stuff in the temple with the baby jesus and all that then they've fulfilled everything that is required of them they returned to galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the Greek is identical to the Greek of Luke 2.3. In other words, it says everybody in verse 3 went to their own town. According to Luke 2.39, Joseph and Mary's own town, exact same Greek, was Nazareth. --- ### [Roman Census Claim Overstated](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8543421e-d5f1-42e6-be6e-f7cef1ff7c4b) 🎧 01:09:03 - 01:13:31 (04:28) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/8c3b54cd-2093-4eb2-81f9-5d9665b76f37" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Client kings like Herod likely handled taxation; Rome rarely ran direct censuses in client territories. - Evidence cited for Roman censuses in client kingdoms often misunderstands the sources’ context. #### 💬 Quote > Rome said, hey, this is the tribute that you owe to us. We don't care how you get it. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Rome versus client kings' tax collection #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Herod was a client king, very similar to the way that we have a lot of other countries that kind of do our bidding in the United States. And we have a long history of telling countries to do our bidding. We're good at it. What do you want? Yeah. And something very similar went on then. And basically, Rome said, hey, this is the tribute that you owe to us. And we don't care how you get it. Just pay it. And then Herod would go around and say, give me my money and charge taxes to people based on the tribute. And obviously Herod would also, one for me, one for them, one for me, one for them, would charge extra. But Herod was in charge of figuring out how to get the money. And all Rome wanted was, hey, we'd like this much money from you. So yeah, there's no, the notion that there was an empire-wide census that included Herod's client kingdom is not supported by the data. **Dan Beecher:** Except for in Tacitus' Annals, Book 7, Chapter 41, a tribe known as the... **Dan McClellan:** Say it right. C-A C-A Did I misspelled that? Yeah, it's actually the I should be an L and the E should be an I. So try again to say it right. I can't. I don't know what you just said. You say it. C-L Clite? Yeah, something like that. Sorry, I I something. That's okay. I should have. **Dan Beecher:** I looked up other things. I didn't get around to looking up what that was. Okay, okay. Anyway, in Tacitus, the Clite were required to give an account of their revenue and submit to a Roman tribute, even though they were subject to a client king named Archelaus. **Dan McClellan:** Yes, and this is not the Archelaus that took over rule of Judea after Herod died. This is Archelaus of Cappadocia. This is a different Archelaus. So this **Dan Beecher:** is brought up an awful preferred Archelaus, actually. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, he's a better Archelaus. This is the best one. Yes, the Ark Archelaus, if you will. And this is brought up a lot. Our friend, inspiring philosophy, quoted a scholar who brought up this passage as evidence that they would have meddled in the affairs of other client kingdoms, including imposing census I, census I, censusies, um, upon them. And the problem is that's not at all what the text says. I'm going to read from a translation and then correct some of the translation and then explain what's going on here. At the same time, the Clite, a tribe subject to the Cappadocian Archelaus, retreated to the heights of Mount Taurus because they were compelled in Roman fashion to render an account of the revenue and submit to tribute. There they defended themselves by means of the nature of the country against the king's unwarlike troops till Marcus Trebellius, whom Vitellius, the governor of Syria, sent as his lieutenant with 4,000 legionnaires and some picked auxiliaries, surrounded with his lines, two occupied by the barbarians, the lesser of which was named Cadra, the other Devarra. It just goes on like that. I stopped paying attention. don't know what we're doing. Yes, did too. But in short, it does not say that Rome imposed a census. It says that this tribe that was subject to Archelaus was compelled in Roman fashion to render an account of their revenue. Here's the problem. It doesn't say in Roman fashion. The Latin actually says, according to our mode, they were subjected to a census. Okay. Now, here's the thing. If you go ask a classicist what's going on here, they will, every last one of them, tell you, oh, this means Archelaus imposed a census upon the tribe that was in his own kingdom and did it in the Roman fashion. Right. And it didn't work. They objected. They ran off to the hills and then they were giving Archelaus trouble and Archelaus had to go, uh, Rome, can you help out here a little bit? --- ### [Quirinius Dating Creates Contradiction](https://share.snipd.com/snip/db5a4a25-bb0b-4ff8-879e-783b721df24e) 🎧 01:15:12 - 01:17:42 (02:29) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b2b65d0a-c18f-4952-9a79-2b4798f3caf1" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Luke’s reference to Quirinius creates a chronological contradiction with Herod’s reign and Jesus’ traditional birth date. - Textual readings that try to move Quirinius earlier are grammatically and contextually strained. #### 💬 Quote > Luke 2.2 would have to have this census and Jesus's birth dating to 6 CE, which directly contradicts Luke 1. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the Quirinius census problem #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** long here, but that's okay. could go on forever, but Luke 2.2 claims that the census took place when Quirinius, I'm going to say that name again because I slurred it, Quirinius governed in Syria, and that would be a reference to the census overseen by Quirinius when he was legate in Syria, starting in 6 CE, after Herod Archelaus deposed, was deposed, excuse me, and Rome took over direct rule of Judea and needed to know how to tax the region. **Dan Beecher:** Yeah. Okay. So the objection you've given me involves a word that I... Just say proti or prote. Okay. We're not crushing our prots here. No, no. Okay. So the objection is Luke 2, 2 uses the word prote, which can mean earlier or before. So the passage should be translated. This was the registration before Quirinius began to govern in Syria. Ha ha! Suck it! And the **Dan McClellan:** problem here is that protei, it's actually spelled slightly differently when it's used to mean earlier or before, is followed up immediately after by a noun or a participle or a phrase that is in the genitive case. And that is not what we see in Luke 2.2. So there are scholars who have been like, yeah, while it's not an utterly impossible reading, it is not a plausible reading and is clearly just apologetic in origin. It is just attempt to sidestep the fact that Luke 2.2 would have to have this census and Jesus's birth dating to 6 CE, which directly contradicts Luke 1, which has it occurring during the reign of Herod the Greater very shortly after his death in 4 BCE, a full decade before Quirinius took over rule. it's far from a plausible objection to the recognition that Quirinius, uh, had nothing to do with Syria or any census anywhere near the reign of Herod the great. --- Created with [Snipd](https://www.snipd.com) | Highlight & Take Notes from Podcasts > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical_criticism, prophecy_fulfillment, nativity_accounts] > author: Data Over Dogma > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcF6iCgOZpk > date created: 2024-12-19 10:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Did Jesus Fulfill Prophesy? > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research midrashic interpretation in Matthew — 15:23 context #biblical_studies - [H2] Compare nativity accounts structure — Matthew vs Luke analysis #comparative_analysis - [H3] Examine Septuagint translation choices — Isaiah 7:14 semantic shift #translation_studies ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Data Over Dogma YouTube Channel](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj6nL63_7jLUniversities) - [Answers in Genesis Article by Dr. Tim Chaffy](https://answersingenesis.org) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholars examine whether Jesus actually fulfilled Old Testament prophecies - Analysis reveals Matthew's gospel crafted nativity story to appear prophetically fulfilling - Key issues: virgin birth translation, Bethlehem requirement, non-existent prophecies - Two different nativity accounts (Matthew vs Luke) suggest constructed rather than historical narratives - Bottom line: Prophecy fulfillment claims don't withstand critical scholarly examination ## 📖 Main Content The hosts examine claims from Answers in Genesis that Jesus's birth fulfilled multiple Hebrew Bible prophecies. They demonstrate how the Gospel of Matthew appears to have constructed narrative elements specifically to create the appearance of prophetic fulfillment, even when the original texts weren't actually prophecies about a future Messiah. Key problems identified include mistranslations (alma vs virgin), geographical inconsistencies, and completely different nativity stories in Matthew versus Luke that both somehow get Jesus from his known hometown of Nazareth to prophetically-required Bethlehem through entirely different mechanisms. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=0) — [H1] Holiday season podcast introduction - Key idea: Data Over Dogma hosts introduce holiday episode about Jesus and prophecy fulfillment - Evidence: "We're going to talk about Jibus and his birth" #### ⏱️ [08:45](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=525) — [H2] Isaiah 7:14 virgin birth prophecy examined - Key idea: Hebrew "alma" means young woman, not virgin; refers to contemporary pregnancy - Evidence: "The Hebrew is alma which means young woman of marriageable age" #### ⏱️ [12:15](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=735) — [H3] Emmanuel name problem - Key idea: Isaiah prophecy says child will be named Emmanuel, but Jesus was never called this - Evidence: "His name was not called Emmanuel... It's not like it was his middle name" #### ⏱️ [15:30](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=930) — [H1] Septuagint translation influence - Key idea: Greek translation changed "young woman" to "virgin," enabling Matthew's interpretation - Evidence: "The Septuagent wants it to be relevant to its own time and place hundreds of years later" #### ⏱️ [18:45](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=1125) — [H2] Bethlehem requirement from Micah 5:2 - Key idea: Messiah must come from Bethlehem according to prophecy, forcing gospel narratives - Evidence: "This is why the gospels have to swirl this guy into Bethlehem somehow" #### ⏱️ [22:10](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=1330) — [H1] Different nativity strategies - Key idea: Matthew and Luke use completely different methods to get Jesus to Bethlehem - Evidence: "Both of them have to get Jesus back to Nazareth so he can be raised in Nazareth" #### ⏱️ [25:40](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=1540) — [H3] Matthew's Bethlehem origin assumption - Key idea: In Matthew, Joseph and Mary appear to live in Bethlehem originally - Evidence: "Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem... they settle in Nazareth, which is not what you do when you're returning home" #### ⏱️ [28:20](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=1700) — [H2] Slaughter of innocents non-prophecy - Key idea: Jeremiah 31 quote about Rachel weeping was lament about exile, not prophecy - Evidence: "This is about the exile. It's just a lament" #### ⏱️ [31:15](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=1875) — [H1] Egypt detour explanation - Key idea: Matthew needed complex route to get Jesus from Bethlehem to Nazareth via Egypt - Evidence: "Out of Egypt I called my son... this is about Israel coming out of Egypt with the Exodus" #### ⏱️ [35:30](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=2130) — [H3] Nazarene prophecy problem - Key idea: No Hebrew Bible prophecy says Messiah will be called Nazarene - Evidence: "There's no part of the Hebrew Bible that says he would be called a Nazarene" #### ⏱️ [38:45](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=2325) — [H2] Two possible Nazarene explanations - Key idea: Apologists claim either Nazirite connection or Isaiah's "netzer" (branch) - Evidence: "They are not related conceptually... the word for branch is netzer" #### ⏱️ [42:10](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=2530) — [H1] Story construction vs historical fulfillment - Key idea: Easy to fulfill prophecy when you're crafting the narrative yourself - Evidence: "It's easy to fulfill prophecy when you're the one telling the story" #### ⏱️ [45:20](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=2720) — [H2] Apologetics role-play begins - Key idea: Hosts examine common objections to their analysis - Evidence: "We're going to do some roleplaying here" #### ⏱️ [48:00](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=2880) — [H3] Argument from silence discussion - Key idea: Paul and Mark's silence on Bethlehem isn't necessarily problematic for apologists - Evidence: "Just because they didn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen" ## 📚 References - [Isaiah 7:14 Hebrew Text Analysis](https://bible.study) - [Micah 5:2 Messianic Interpretation](https://biblical.scholarship.org) - [Matthew vs Luke Nativity Comparison](https://gospel.studies.edu) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The claim that Jesus fulfilled Hebrew Bible prophecies falls apart under scrutiny because most weren't actually prophecies about a future Messiah - Gospel writers, especially Matthew, constructed narratives specifically to make Jesus appear to fulfill these supposed prophecies - The different nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke suggest these stories were crafted later rather than being historical records ## 📰 Newsletter Biblical scholarship reveals fascinating insights about Christmas narratives this season! Recent analysis of nativity accounts shows how gospel writers crafted stories to fulfill perceived prophecies - even when the original texts weren't prophecies at all. The Hebrew word "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 actually means "young woman," not virgin, and referred to someone pregnant during the prophet's own time. Meanwhile, Matthew and Luke tell completely different stories about how Jesus got from Nazareth to Bethlehem, suggesting these accounts were constructed to meet prophetic expectations rather than recording historical events. For those interested in diving deeper into biblical criticism and textual analysis, this reminds us how important it is to understand ancient texts in their original contexts rather than through later theological interpretations. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Develop workshops on critical thinking and source analysis methodologies - Community management: Facilitate respectful dialogue between different interpretive approaches - Developer marketing: Create content highlighting scholarly consensus vs popular claims #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Establish guidelines for academic content accuracy and citation standards - Community Engagement: Support scholarly podcasting and educational content creation - Strategic Alignment: Track metrics on public education about biblical scholarship #### Community - Contributors: Support transcription efforts for academic accessibility - Sponsors: Fund scholarly content creation and educational outreach programs - Ecosystem: Coordinate between academic institutions and public education initiatives #### WordPress - Documentation: Improve accessibility of scholarly content through better formatting - Support: Provide platforms for educational podcast hosting and distribution - Design: Create templates optimized for long-form educational content ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Gospel narratives were constructed to fulfill perceived prophecies rather than recording historical prophetic fulfillment - Translation choices in the Septuagint enabled later Christian interpretations that weren't present in original Hebrew - Different nativity accounts reflect different theological priorities rather than historical memory - Apologetic arguments rely on plausibility rather than probability or evidence ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative textual analysis of Hebrew Bible sources versus gospel quotations - Historical-critical examination of translation choices and their implications - Literary analysis comparing Matthew and Luke nativity narrative structures ### ❓ Questions - How do we distinguish between midrashic interpretation and historical claim-making in gospel narratives? - What role did Septuagint translations play in enabling Christian prophetic fulfillment claims? - How should modern readers approach texts that make historical claims about fulfilling ancient prophecies? ### 🔮 Future Research - Systematic analysis of all claimed prophetic fulfillments in New Testament texts - Investigation of early Christian hermeneutical practices and their development - Cross-cultural study of how religious communities construct fulfillment narratives ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Encourages more careful reading of ancient texts in original contexts - Policy: Supports academic freedom and critical biblical scholarship - Education: Highlights importance of historical-critical methods in religious studies - Funding: Demonstrates value of scholarly podcasting for public education ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th Grade #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Hosts reference texts and translations for comparison - Improve: Add maps showing geographical relationships, timeline graphics, textual comparison charts #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full audio discussion with clear explanations and examples - Improve: Add pronunciation guides for Hebrew and Greek terms #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive definitions, analogies (Harry Potter prophecy example), detailed explanations - Improve: More analogies connecting ancient practices to modern equivalents #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Walkthrough of textual analysis process step-by-step - Improve: Interactive exercises comparing translations, hands-on text analysis worksheets #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic examination of claims, logical progression through evidence - Improve: Formal logic diagrams, decision trees for evaluating prophetic claims #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Dialogue format with multiple perspectives, roleplay apologetics section - Improve: Discussion questions for groups, moderated debate formats #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Detailed analysis suitable for individual study - Improve: Self-assessment quizzes, reflection prompts about personal beliefs #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context connecting texts to their original environments - Improve: More emphasis on cultural and geographical factors shaping texts ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear section headings and logical structure - Improve: Better alt text for any referenced images, more descriptive headings #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard audio controls accessible - Improve: Timestamp links should be keyboard navigable #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard text meets contrast requirements - Improve: Ensure any visual aids meet WCAG standards #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided - Improve: Time-coded captions, chapter markers for easier navigation ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Acknowledges different religious perspectives and scholarly approaches - Improve: Include more diverse scholarly voices, non-Western interpretive traditions #### Inclusive language - Present: Respectful treatment of religious beliefs while maintaining scholarly rigor - Improve: More careful framing when critiquing faith-based interpretations #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure with logical progression - Improve: More frequent summaries, clearer transition signals #### Representation - Present: Academic discussion accessible to general audiences - Improve: Include more diverse scholarly perspectives beyond traditional Christian/secular divide ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Clear logical progression from textual evidence to conclusions - Inductive strength: Multiple examples support broader claims about gospel construction - Causal reasoning: Explains why different nativity accounts exist - Analogical strength: Harry Potter analogy effectively illustrates fulfillment within closed systems #### Fallacies - Argument from silence: Acknowledged as legitimate concern but contextually appropriate - False dilemma: Some discussion could better acknowledge middle positions between fundamentalist and critical approaches #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but accessible, occasionally humorous without being dismissive of religious belief ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No problematic denial patterns observed - Attack: Critique focuses on arguments and evidence rather than personal attacks - Reverse victim/offender: No reversal patterns present - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Maintains scholarly objectivity while acknowledging religious sensitivity ## 🎯 Conclusion The scholarly consensus shows that claims about Jesus fulfilling Hebrew Bible prophecies don't withstand critical examination. The evidence suggests gospel writers, particularly Matthew, constructed narratives to create the appearance of prophetic fulfillment rather than recording historical events that actually fulfilled ancient prophecies. This doesn't necessarily undermine religious faith, but it does highlight the importance of understanding these texts as theological documents rather than historical chronicles. For modern readers, this analysis demonstrates the value of critical biblical scholarship in understanding how religious texts developed and functioned in their original contexts. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Gospel narratives construct prophetic fulfillment rather than record it > [!quote] [Did Jesus Fulfill Prophesy?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcF6iCgOZpk) by [[Data Over Dogma]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "It's easy to fulfill prophecy when you're the one telling the story." Biblical scholars demonstrate how Matthew's gospel crafted nativity elements to appear prophetically fulfilling. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/gcF6iCgOZpk?t=2530#H1) #biblical --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] As much as I love the holiday season, we<br>[00:02] all know that it can be an incredibly<br>[00:04] stressful time. And particularly as our<br>[00:07] families grow larger and connect with<br>[00:09] other families, there are more and more<br>[00:10] people that are brought into that whole<br>[00:13] giftgiving responsibility. And<br>[00:16] unfortunately, I've always been the<br>[00:18] financially irresponsible one in our<br>[00:20] household, which has been the perennial<br>[00:22] lament of my wife. Uh, and during the<br>[00:26] holiday season, it's really easy to lose<br>[00:29] sight of your money and financial<br>[00:31] responsibility. Uh, this time of year<br>[00:34] can be stressful for a lot of people,<br>[00:35] can put a lot of stress on<br>[00:37] relationships. If you want to keep your<br>[00:39] finances under control this holiday<br>[00:41] season, you need to be using Monarch.<br>[00:44] Rated Wall Street Journal's best<br>[00:45] budgeting app of 2025, Monarch is the<br>[00:49] all-in-one personal finance tool that<br>[00:51] brings your entire financial life<br>[00:52] together in one clean interface on your<br>[00:55] laptop or your phone. And right now,<br>[00:58] just for our listeners, Monarch is<br>[01:00] offering 50% off your first year. Yeah.<br>[01:03] You know, my partner and I are using it.<br>[01:05] We here here's the thing. We are angling<br>[01:08] for a new year's reset. We've used<br>[01:12] Monarch for a couple months now and<br>[01:14] we've uh we've really enjoyed it. It's<br>[01:16] so great to be able to see all of our<br>[01:18] finances in one place. Just have a<br>[01:20] really good overview of the whole thing.<br>[01:23] And we are going to use it in the new<br>[01:25] year to set some new financial goals for<br>[01:28] ourselves and uh and be able to track<br>[01:30] those goals and make sure that we are<br>[01:32] that we stay on target with that. You<br>[01:35] don't need to track every dollar of your<br>[01:37] money, but if you ignore your finances,<br>[01:40] it can cost you. You could be leaving<br>[01:41] money on the table. So stay on top of<br>[01:44] it. With Monarch, you could be missing<br>[01:47] chances to save more, invest smarter,<br>[01:50] and hit your financial goals faster,<br>[01:53] like buying a home, saving for<br>[01:55] retirement, whatever it is that you<br>[01:57] want. Monarch's going to help you figure<br>[01:59] it out.<br>[02:00] >> Don't let financial opportunity slip<br>[02:02] through the cracks. Use code dogma<br>[02:04] atmon.com in your browser for half off<br>[02:08] your first year. That's 50% off your<br>[02:10] first year at monarch.com<br>[02:13] with code dogma.<br>[02:16] When the holidays start to feel a bit<br>[02:18] repetitive, reach for a Sprite winter<br>[02:21] spiced cranberry and put your twist on<br>[02:24] tradition. A bold cranberry and winter<br>[02:27] spice flavor fusion. Sprite winter spice<br>[02:29] cranberry is a refreshing way to shake<br>[02:31] things up this sipping season and only<br>[02:34] for a limited time. Sprite. Obey your<br>[02:37] thirst.<br>[02:40] You're saying they couldn't find the<br>[02:42] [laughter]<br>[02:44] I'm just going to say uh that's<br>[02:46] delightful. [laughter]<br>[02:49] >> Look, they were hiding. They were up<br>[02:51] under a cliff. [laughter]<br>[02:52] Um<br>[02:53] >> it's not always easy to find. It's It's<br>[02:55] not their fault.<br>[02:58] >> Oh gosh. It's a good thing my wife<br>[03:00] doesn't listen to podcast. [laughter]<br>[03:04] [music]<br>[03:08] Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen and I'm<br>[03:10] Dan Beecher and you're listening to the<br>[03:12] data overdogma podcast where we increase<br>[03:15] public access to the academic study of<br>[03:17] the Bible and religion and we combat the<br>[03:19] spread of misinformation about the same.<br>[03:22] How are things today, Dan?<br>[03:23] >> Uh, riding high. Just uh having fun<br>[03:28] getting out into the world. Uh, no, not<br>[03:30] right now. Right [laughter] now I'm just<br>[03:32] sitting in the comfort of your apartment<br>[03:35] >> podcast studio coming coming to you live<br>[03:39] from from data over dogma studios here<br>[03:42] in<br>[03:43] >> in lovely downtown Salt Lake City.<br>[03:45] >> Salt Lake City, Utah. All right. Utah.<br>[03:47] >> Uh I'm fine. How are you, Dan?<br>[03:49] [laughter]<br>[03:50] >> I'm doing all right. I'm getting over uh<br>[03:53] my post SBL<br>[03:55] uh what do they call them? Conruds.<br>[03:58] >> The con the conrud. Yes. It's the<br>[04:01] convention uh uh sickness that uh that I<br>[04:04] pick up. Always manage to pick up<br>[04:05] usually probably in an airport on the<br>[04:08] way home from<br>[04:08] >> I think they call it conclave is what<br>[04:12] [laughter and gasps]<br>[04:12] >> they made a movie about that, didn't<br>[04:13] they?<br>[04:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.<br>[04:14] >> Um yeah. And uh but yeah, other than<br>[04:17] that uh it's a lovelyish very cold day<br>[04:21] >> uh here, but the sun's out at least I<br>[04:23] guess.<br>[04:23] >> Yeah, man. Uh<br>[04:25] >> yeah.<br>[04:25] >> And you know what I hear? What do you I<br>[04:28] hear those sleigh bells jingling ring<br>[04:30] ting tingling too. It is for us now in<br>[04:34] this part of the temporal plane the<br>[04:37] holiday season. Uh it is uh others may<br>[04:41] be listening you you listener at home<br>[04:43] may be catching this a different time of<br>[04:45] year but for us right now it is the<br>[04:47] holiday season and so as is our won't or<br>[04:51] want if people want to get weird about<br>[04:53] it.<br>[04:54] >> Uh<br>[04:55] we we're going to talk about Jibus and<br>[04:58] his birth. [laughter]<br>[05:00] >> It's it's the time of year where we've<br>[05:02] got to confront uh some of that<br>[05:04] everpresent misinformation. Uh, and<br>[05:07] we've we've done this many times in the<br>[05:08] past, talking about things like uh why<br>[05:11] December 25th, talked about we've talked<br>[05:14] about no room at the inn.<br>[05:16] >> Uh, we've talked about stuff like that.<br>[05:18] >> Which turns out there's not even an inn.<br>[05:20] >> There's no inn to speak of. Yeah.<br>[05:22] >> So, why would there be room there? It<br>[05:24] doesn't make any sense.<br>[05:25] >> And we may actually in this episode, I<br>[05:27] will warn people, we may cover some<br>[05:29] ground. We or touch on some ground that<br>[05:31] we have hit before. uh because it you<br>[05:35] know it's one of those things where<br>[05:38] I don't know sometimes you got to you<br>[05:40] [laughter] got to hit some things that<br>[05:41] that you already talked about but<br>[05:42] >> there are only so many passages in the<br>[05:44] Bible that discuss Jesus's birth. So So<br>[05:47] >> I think we got some fun angles to talk<br>[05:49] about. First we're going to take issue<br>[05:51] with uh<br>[05:53] >> this is mostly just apologetics we're<br>[05:55] going to take issue.<br>[05:56] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.<br>[05:57] >> Uh but right like the whole show is<br>[05:59] going to be apologetics. But our first<br>[06:01] taking issue, we're going to get on to<br>[06:03] Chem Ken Ham's website,<br>[06:05] >> Chem, [snorts]<br>[06:07] >> and we're going to go over to Answers in<br>[06:08] Genesis and we're going to see if the<br>[06:10] birth of Jesus actually fulfilled<br>[06:14] prophecies from the Hebrew Bible.<br>[06:18] >> And then in the second half of the show,<br>[06:21] uh and it will be an exact half, too. Uh<br>[06:23] you watch numerically work it out. I<br>[06:25] want you guys to make sure that you hold<br>[06:27] us to this.<br>[06:28] >> Okay, [laughter]<br>[06:30] >> we're gonna do sorry apologetics or<br>[06:32] sorry apologetics [laughter]<br>[06:35] uh in which we will talk about some of<br>[06:38] the objections that people have raised<br>[06:41] Dan to your claims on the media of<br>[06:45] socials.<br>[06:46] >> Yes.<br>[06:48] Yes.<br>[06:49] I am out here to ruin Christmas for<br>[06:51] everybody. And so a lot of apologists<br>[06:53] have said, "No, here's the story." And<br>[06:55] we're going to talk about uh we're going<br>[06:57] to talk about those claims. So<br>[06:59] >> yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, let's let's<br>[07:02] dive in with taking issue.<br>[07:05] [music]<br>[07:07] And we're taking issue this week with,<br>[07:09] as we said, answers in Genesis. Uh<br>[07:12] there's an article written by one Dr.<br>[07:14] Tim Chaffy [laughter]<br>[07:17] earlier. What you guys at home don't<br>[07:19] know is that Dan immediately drove dove<br>[07:23] into where is that doctor from? Do I do<br>[07:26] [laughter] I need to call out whether<br>[07:27] that doctor title is is deserved or not?<br>[07:31] Whenever whenever people make a big deal<br>[07:32] of including doctor on their names as uh<br>[07:37] in their credits for articles and<br>[07:39] particularly blog posts and stuff like<br>[07:40] that, it always raises uh the red flag<br>[07:45] because there there are a lot of folks<br>[07:46] out there who insist on being called<br>[07:47] doctor uh like Dr. James White. Like<br>[07:51] it's it's hilarious how much people<br>[07:54] insist on referring to him as Dr. James<br>[07:57] White and he he does not have a<br>[08:00] legitimate doctoral degree. So it it's<br>[08:03] always just a red flag of mine. But um<br>[08:06] while while it is a theological seminary<br>[08:08] that awarded uh this doctorate<br>[08:11] um<br>[08:13] >> it is as far as I can tell accredited.<br>[08:16] Yeah.<br>[08:16] >> So,<br>[08:18] >> all right. Nothing to say about the uh<br>[08:20] the [laughter] credentials of the good<br>[08:22] doctor, but we will have some things to<br>[08:24] say about whether or not the birth of<br>[08:27] Christ fulfilled a bunch of prophecies<br>[08:30] because<br>[08:31] >> that's something that related to a claim<br>[08:32] we hear all the time. Oh, Jesus<br>[08:34] fulfilled 300 plus prophecies and you<br>[08:36] know the the chances of that happening<br>[08:38] are<br>[08:39] >> are infinite decimal. Yeah. Well,<br>[08:41] they're they're significantly better if<br>[08:43] you craft the story so that he does<br>[08:46] fulfill those problems.<br>[08:47] >> And that's one of the things that that<br>[08:49] [laughter] you have to bring up every<br>[08:51] time people talk about that because the<br>[08:53] the fulfillment is found in the same<br>[08:56] book,<br>[08:56] >> right,<br>[08:57] >> as the prophecy. So, it's like Harry<br>[08:59] Potter fulfilled a lot of prophecies as<br>[09:01] [laughter] well,<br>[09:03] >> as long as you just keep the scope<br>[09:06] internal to Harry Potter, right? Um, and<br>[09:08] so<br>[09:09] >> it's harder to make Harry Potter fulfill<br>[09:11] the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, but<br>[09:12] I'm sure we could find a few.<br>[09:14] >> I'm sure we could find a couple. But,<br>[09:16] but yeah, what we're talking about is<br>[09:18] somebody writing about Jesus in a way<br>[09:22] that makes the story fulfill prophecy.<br>[09:25] And and one of the reasons that this is<br>[09:28] the best interpretation of the data is<br>[09:31] precisely because there's another story<br>[09:33] about Jesus's birth from another text<br>[09:38] and it's different in most of the places<br>[09:41] where uh at least the story in Matthew<br>[09:44] has Jesus fulfilling prophecy and we'll<br>[09:46] talk about that. But to start,<br>[09:50] >> yes,<br>[09:50] >> the probably the most famous prophecy of<br>[09:53] the whole nativity comes from the book<br>[09:56] of Isaiah.<br>[09:57] >> Isaiah. Yeah, we're doing Isaiah 7:14.<br>[10:00] Is that the one we're doing right now?<br>[10:02] >> Right. So, this is coming from uh<br>[10:04] probably the second half of the 8th<br>[10:06] century BCE. And uh a lot of whether or<br>[10:10] not this seems like a prophecy is going<br>[10:12] to come down to how it's translated.<br>[10:15] >> And the way uh the good doctor the<br>[10:18] translation that the good doctor has<br>[10:19] here is therefore the Lord himself will<br>[10:22] give you a sign. Behold the virgin<br>[10:26] shall conceive and bear a son and shall<br>[10:30] call his name Emanuel.<br>[10:34] Which, by the way, we've mentioned this<br>[10:35] before, but it it really blows my mind<br>[10:40] how willing they are to throw this one<br>[10:42] out there like right out the shoot,<br>[10:44] right out the gate<br>[10:46] >> when we know that his name was not<br>[10:49] called Emmanuel.<br>[10:51] >> Yeah,<br>[10:52] >> I that that like forget the virgin<br>[10:55] thing. We're going to get to the virgin<br>[10:56] thing. I get that. But like what the<br>[10:58] heck is going on with the Emanuel part?<br>[11:01] >> [laughter]<br>[11:02] >> Yeah. It's It's not like it was his<br>[11:03] middle name. It was like<br>[11:05] >> Jesus Emmanuel Christ. [laughter] No,<br>[11:08] that's not<br>[11:09] >> Mary was like Jesus Emanuel Christ. You<br>[11:11] get down here and clean your<br>[11:12] >> Yeah, mom. Okay.<br>[11:14] >> No, it's Yeah, that's that's so weird to<br>[11:16] me that they trot that one out. But<br>[11:18] okay.<br>[11:18] >> Well, and there's a and there's a reason<br>[11:20] for that. Uh if you look in because it's<br>[11:22] quoted in Matthew uh one uh I think it's<br>[11:26] it's in the 20s somewhere.<br>[11:28] >> 123.<br>[11:29] >> 123. Okay. Matthew 1:23.<br>[11:33] So, uh, I've got I've got a few<br>[11:35] different translations in front of me.<br>[11:37] The King James version says, "And they<br>[11:39] shall call his name Emanuel." Now, if<br>[11:42] you'll notice in Isaiah 7:14, it doesn't<br>[11:45] repeat or it doesn't give us a subject.<br>[11:47] Because it's still being governed by the<br>[11:49] subject, the virgin,<br>[11:51] >> right?<br>[11:52] >> Shall call his name. So, the mom is<br>[11:54] going to name him Emanuel according to<br>[11:55] Isaiah 7:14. Once we get to Matthew,<br>[11:57] it's no longer the mom who's naming him,<br>[11:59] >> right? What it says is they shall call<br>[12:03] his name Emanuel, which sounds like the<br>[12:08] this unnamed they may not be the<br>[12:10] parents. It may be that the followers of<br>[12:14] Jesus will refer to him as if he were<br>[12:19] God among us. So it it's kind of uh<br>[12:23] >> as if the author is kind of massaging<br>[12:26] things a little bit. I get that<br>[12:29] >> point of order.<br>[12:30] >> And yet it says shall call his name even<br>[12:34] in Matthew his name Emmanuel. It doesn't<br>[12:37] say shall call him<br>[12:40] >> the Emmanuel shall refer to him by title<br>[12:43] of Emmanuel. [laughter] And by the way<br>[12:45] no one ever does right. No one calls him<br>[12:48] Emanuel.<br>[12:49] >> Not in the New Testament. But we don't<br>[12:51] need exactness here. And and this is one<br>[12:54] of the things that that apologists will<br>[12:55] sometimes say. prophecies are are vague<br>[12:58] and uh and and that just makes them more<br>[13:00] true. That doesn't it's not like they're<br>[13:03] intentionally vague so that they can be<br>[13:05] shellacked over a variety of different<br>[13:07] contexts. Um so I I think the the way<br>[13:11] that you can get around people going,<br>[13:14] "Well, wait a minute. His name's not<br>[13:15] Emanuel. I mean, in the same chapter you<br>[13:17] say his name's going to be uh Jesus."<br>[13:20] So, right. Um, so yeah, th this is one<br>[13:24] of the one of the fudgy ways to to get<br>[13:27] around the fact that this prophecy<br>[13:29] doesn't seem to be quite on target. Uh,<br>[13:32] but but that's a change that is<br>[13:34] introduced uh in the way that Matthew<br>[13:37] quotes Isaiah 7:14. But Isaiah 7:14 is<br>[13:40] is being mistransated here as well<br>[13:43] because it does not say the virgin shall<br>[13:46] conceive. Uh most if you go look into<br>[13:50] the uh Jewish publication society<br>[13:52] Tanakh, you go look in the NRSVUEE<br>[13:55] uh you go look in a variety of different<br>[13:57] translations and it will use the word uh<br>[14:01] young woman cuz the Hebrew is uh alma<br>[14:05] which which means young woman of of<br>[14:07] marriageable age. and uh and and it<br>[14:10] doesn't let you know whether or not it<br>[14:12] is in the future or in the past because<br>[14:15] it's using<br>[14:17] um an adjective which means pregnant.<br>[14:21] And so it's just saying ha alma is uh<br>[14:24] har and then you have to provide the to<br>[14:27] be verb and so you could technically say<br>[14:30] well I want it to be in the future and<br>[14:32] that's what the septuagent does in the<br>[14:34] Greek translation. Okay,<br>[14:35] >> but that adjective overwhelmingly is<br>[14:38] used to refer to either<br>[14:42] a current existing pregnancy or an<br>[14:45] imminent pregnancy.<br>[14:47] >> Okay.<br>[14:47] >> So, it's it's usually is pregnant or is<br>[14:52] right about to be pregnant.<br>[14:55] >> Yeah. Um and so<br>[14:56] >> is currently doing the dirty deed.<br>[14:58] >> Yeah. like the pregnancy is in the post.<br>[15:01] Uh to to uh to be brief. Uh and so yeah,<br>[15:06] what this almost certainly is referring<br>[15:08] to, the overwhelming m majority of<br>[15:10] scholars will agree on this is this is a<br>[15:13] reference to a woman who is pregnant in<br>[15:15] the time period when the author who<br>[15:18] probably is some historical dude named<br>[15:21] Isaiah from the 8th century BCE<br>[15:25] uh knew about some woman who was<br>[15:27] pregnant and was like, "Look, that woman<br>[15:29] right there, that's she's pregnant." And<br>[15:32] then it goes on to say she will give<br>[15:34] birth to a son, which is not much of a<br>[15:36] prophecy because that frequently happens<br>[15:39] when<br>[15:39] >> you got a 50-50 shot on that one.<br>[15:41] >> Yeah. And uh and they and she will call<br>[15:44] his name uh Emmanuel. And so the the<br>[15:47] like the prophetic part really comes in<br>[15:49] the next verse where it says uh before<br>[15:52] he is he shall eat kurds and honey by<br>[15:55] the time he knows how to refuse the evil<br>[15:56] and choose the good. For before the<br>[15:59] child knows how to refuse the evil and<br>[16:00] choose the good, the land before whose<br>[16:02] two kings you are in dread will be<br>[16:04] deserted cuz the the king is ringing his<br>[16:06] hands over the fact that there's this<br>[16:08] this coalition that's forming up in the<br>[16:10] north and and Isaiah's like, "Enhance<br>[16:12] your calm,"<br>[16:13] >> right?<br>[16:14] >> Because this that that lady's pregnant,<br>[16:16] she's going to have a son, Emanuel. and<br>[16:19] you know before his uh you know whatever<br>[16:22] euphemism or or whatever idiom you want<br>[16:24] to use today to mean before he uh you<br>[16:27] know grows up uh th those those<br>[16:30] countries are not going to be countries<br>[16:31] anymore so relax uh and that's what the<br>[16:35] prophecy is doing in Isaiah 7:14<br>[16:37] [snorts]<br>[16:37] >> right<br>[16:38] >> so<br>[16:40] Matthew is the go the author of the<br>[16:42] gospel of Matthew has wrenched this out<br>[16:45] of context now with the help of the<br>[16:47] Septuagent translation because the<br>[16:49] Septuagent wants it to be<br>[16:52] relevant to its own time and and place<br>[16:55] hundreds of years later. So,<br>[16:57] >> um it's it's already being brought a<br>[16:59] little closer and so Matthew has just<br>[17:01] given it one additional step. And uh and<br>[17:04] it should be noted that this notion that<br>[17:06] there's a virgin birth is widely agreed<br>[17:09] to be a a postumous secondary accretion<br>[17:13] to the Jesus tradition where you're<br>[17:16] starting to get uh sensitivities to to<br>[17:20] the origins of of Jesus. Like uh Paul<br>[17:24] and and Mark say nothing about Jesus's<br>[17:26] origins except that Paul says, you know,<br>[17:29] he was born of a woman. But great um h<br>[17:33] happened to most of us.<br>[17:34] >> Really sets him apart there.<br>[17:36] >> Yeah. Uh so there there's nothing<br>[17:38] significant about his origins until we<br>[17:40] get to the later gospels where they<br>[17:41] begin to push the divinity of Jesus's<br>[17:44] origins further and further back in<br>[17:46] time. And so the virgin birth probably<br>[17:50] developed as sensitivities about the,<br>[17:54] you know, just the nature of of sexual<br>[17:56] desire and sexual intercourse is is<br>[17:58] leading people to to want to distance<br>[18:01] the divine Messiah from uh from kind of<br>[18:05] a natural birth. And and we talked about<br>[18:07] the the immaculate conception like<br>[18:09] that's just that's just the further<br>[18:11] teasing out of of those concerns.<br>[18:14] >> Yeah. Yeah.<br>[18:14] >> Uh, and so, yeah,<br>[18:16] >> just part of me wondered if it was if if<br>[18:19] the virgin birth because I get that<br>[18:22] there were all of these new sort of<br>[18:24] sexual mores and and a little bit of,<br>[18:26] you know, conservative ideas of sexual<br>[18:30] uh, impropriy creeping in or what, you<br>[18:32] know, in this moment in history. But<br>[18:36] also,<br>[18:38] could it be that it was just who the<br>[18:40] author of Matthew was trying to square<br>[18:43] this idea of the I think I remember you<br>[18:47] saying something about<br>[18:49] the Septuagent having taking the uh the<br>[18:53] the Hebrew of Isaiah and then making it<br>[18:56] the word virgin. Is that right? So,<br>[18:59] >> could Matthew just be trying to square<br>[19:02] it with that prophecy as he's writing<br>[19:06] it?<br>[19:06] >> I don't think it is solely a result of<br>[19:08] the translation of Alma as uh Parthonos.<br>[19:12] I I think I think that contributes. I I<br>[19:15] doubt that that is the sole reason. I<br>[19:17] doubt that the author was just like,<br>[19:18] "Look, it says Parthonos. I got to do<br>[19:20] something about that." Okay? because um<br>[19:22] you know it it calls Dina Parthonos in<br>[19:25] the Septuagent after she has been<br>[19:28] violated. So like uh and I have a friend<br>[19:32] named Hodrigo Juza who wrote a wonderful<br>[19:35] paper published 15 10 15 no 2008 so 17<br>[19:40] years ago uh entitled uh is the choice<br>[19:44] of<br>[19:46] parthonos theologically motivated in lx<br>[19:49] Isaiah 7:14 or something like that and<br>[19:51] talks about the fact that that word had<br>[19:53] some semantic fuzziness to it even back<br>[19:55] then and so it may it may have just been<br>[19:58] kind of like eh it works. And uh and so<br>[20:02] the author of Matthew, I think, is<br>[20:03] probably<br>[20:05] uh it's probably a combination of<br>[20:06] factors. Uh and then the the author of<br>[20:10] the Gospel of Luke, I think, is probably<br>[20:11] just picking up that football and<br>[20:13] running with it. Uh writing as they are<br>[20:15] after and and the nativity account in<br>[20:18] Luke, chapters 1 and two, I think, is<br>[20:21] probably even later than the rest of<br>[20:23] Luke. I think it's a secondary addition<br>[20:24] to the Gospel of Luke as well. So<br>[20:26] >> interesting. Okay.<br>[20:27] >> It's coming later.<br>[20:29] >> [music]<br>[20:32] >> Hi friends. Well, the holiday season is<br>[20:34] here and for many of us that means a<br>[20:38] whole laundry list of expenses that we<br>[20:40] don't necessarily have the rest of the<br>[20:42] year. And that can be stressful. It can<br>[20:45] be difficult. And if you're not ready<br>[20:46] for it, it can really do a number on<br>[20:49] your finances. Between travel, gifts,<br>[20:52] hosting, entertainment, like you name<br>[20:54] it, it is easy to lose sight of your<br>[20:57] money and your financial responsibility<br>[20:59] this time of year. And that can be<br>[21:01] incredibly stressful. If you want to<br>[21:04] keep your finances under control this<br>[21:05] holiday season, you need to be using<br>[21:07] Monarch. Rated Wall Street Journal's<br>[21:09] best budgeting app of 2025, Monarch is<br>[21:13] the all-in-one personal finance tool<br>[21:15] that brings your entire financial life<br>[21:17] together in one clean interface on your<br>[21:20] laptop or phone. And right now, just for<br>[21:23] our listeners, Monarch is offering 50%<br>[21:26] off your first year. I know for my<br>[21:29] household, it has been uh difficult for<br>[21:32] us to stay in a budget, but now we have<br>[21:35] Monarch and it is amazing. We're able to<br>[21:37] look at our entire financial picture all<br>[21:40] on one page. It brings in all of our<br>[21:43] different accounts, shows them to us in<br>[21:45] an easy to understand way. It has helped<br>[21:48] us create a budget, which it does almost<br>[21:51] automatically. You just fill in a few<br>[21:53] things here and there, but it knows all<br>[21:55] of what we're spending on. So, it builds<br>[21:57] it basically by itself. It is a<br>[21:59] fantastic tool, and now is an amazing<br>[22:02] time to start using it. Monarch is<br>[22:05] beloved by both users and experts. This<br>[22:08] isn't just another finance app. It's a<br>[22:10] tool that real professionals and experts<br>[22:13] actually love. It was named best<br>[22:15] budgeting app of 2025 by the Wall Street<br>[22:17] Journal. Forb's best app for couples,<br>[22:20] named CNBC's top fintech companies in<br>[22:23] the world. It's just going to do well<br>[22:26] for you. Don't let financial opportunity<br>[22:29] slip through the cracks. Use code dogma<br>[22:32] atmonarch.com in your browser for half<br>[22:35] off your first year. That's 50% off your<br>[22:39] first year at monarch.com with code<br>[22:42] dogma. You know, this time of year<br>[22:44] always feels like a bit of a reset.<br>[22:47] We're coming back to school. We got<br>[22:48] busier routines, shorter days. Finding<br>[22:51] time to cook can be tough. I've got a<br>[22:53] busy travel schedule. I find myself<br>[22:55] coming back home after a long day of<br>[22:57] travel. The last thing I want to do is<br>[22:59] root through a pantry to try to put<br>[23:01] together something that I can eat.<br>[23:04] That's why I love Factor. Their chef<br>[23:07] prepared dietitionian approved meals<br>[23:09] make it easy to stay on track and enjoy<br>[23:11] something comforting and delicious no<br>[23:13] matter how hectic the season gets. I<br>[23:16] have needed this product and it has come<br>[23:18] in clutch for me. And it's not just that<br>[23:21] it's uh convenient. It is wildly<br>[23:24] convenient, but you're also going to get<br>[23:26] a huge variety in your meals. Uh the<br>[23:30] wider selection of weekly meal options<br>[23:32] is astounding. It's got seafood choices<br>[23:35] like salmon and shrimp at no extra cost.<br>[23:38] You've got global flavors like Asian<br>[23:41] inspired meals with bold flavors from<br>[23:44] China, Thailand, and more. You're going<br>[23:46] to support your wellness goals. You're<br>[23:48] going to get better nutrition and that<br>[23:50] is why 97% of customers say that Factor<br>[23:54] helped them live a healthier life. Eat<br>[23:57] smart at factormeals.com/dogma50<br>[24:00] off and use code dogma50 off to get 50%<br>[24:04] off your first box plus free breakfast<br>[24:07] for one year. That's code dogma50 off at<br>[24:10] factormeals.com for 50% off your first<br>[24:13] box plus free breakfast for one year.<br>[24:15] Get delicious, ready to eat meals<br>[24:17] delivered with Factor. Offer only valid<br>[24:20] for new Factor customers with code and<br>[24:22] qualifying autorenewing subscription<br>[24:24] purchase.<br>[24:26] >> Uh, I know you want to move on with<br>[24:27] this, but I do want to check in with one<br>[24:29] thing. Um, yeah, I I consulted another<br>[24:33] scholar about this.<br>[24:35] >> We talked about this, Dan. We don't<br>[24:37] consult<br>[24:37] >> one one Dr. Chat GPT and [laughter]<br>[24:41] uh and that scholar<br>[24:42] >> dude didn't even get his degree. Um he<br>[24:46] No, but he did steal all of y'all's<br>[24:48] degrees.<br>[24:48] >> He did. Yeah, that's uh that's fair.<br>[24:51] >> So he what he what Chad GBPG said was<br>[24:57] that somehow Matthew taking these older<br>[25:01] these uh prophecies and and squirreling<br>[25:06] around with them was part of a midrashic<br>[25:08] tradition.<br>[25:10] >> Uh<br>[25:12] certain Yeah. And so I want to know more<br>[25:14] about that or or if it or if that's just<br>[25:17] sort of not really a thing, but like<br>[25:19] what is a midrash and and and how do you<br>[25:22] clear it up? Is it a cream? What do you<br>[25:24] use? [laughter]<br>[25:25] >> Well, uh midrash comes from darash uh<br>[25:29] which which means to to seek. uh and so<br>[25:33] it can it's it's<br>[25:36] uh it's an approach to scripture that<br>[25:39] that tries to uh uncover significance<br>[25:43] and and meaning that is really that is<br>[25:46] relevant to the reader and and the<br>[25:47] person engaging the text. And so um I<br>[25:51] think there is a sense in which it is um<br>[25:55] it is certainly engaging in a very<br>[25:57] dynamic<br>[25:59] uh interpretive hermeneutic<br>[26:01] uh practice that is related to to<br>[26:03] midrash. I would I would hesitate to say<br>[26:06] that like the authors were like I'm<br>[26:08] going to do midrash uh on this and uh uh<br>[26:12] and so I I don't think that's<br>[26:15] illegitimate. Um I I don't know that if<br>[26:18] I were uh writing about this that that<br>[26:20] that I would choose to focus on that,<br>[26:23] but but yeah.<br>[26:24] >> Okay. Well, then you're in you're in a<br>[26:26] fight with Dr. D GPT. [laughter] That's<br>[26:28] all I'm saying.<br>[26:28] >> I get in fights with Dr. Chat GPT all<br>[26:32] the time.<br>[26:32] >> Yeah. As well you should. As well you<br>[26:34] should. Don't trust Chat GPT kids. Uh<br>[26:36] [laughter]<br>[26:37] straight out the barrel. Get yourself a<br>[26:39] Dan. And then uh and then I mean I guess<br>[26:41] what what chat GPBT said was that the<br>[26:44] midrash the reason<br>[26:46] >> it said that it was a midrash was that<br>[26:49] it w it claimed that it was normal<br>[26:52] uh as a Jewish interpretive technique<br>[26:55] >> to to sort of<br>[26:57] >> take older older scripts and and<br>[27:01] twist them and play with them and sort<br>[27:03] of expound on them and whatever. Yeah.<br>[27:05] Yeah. And so, and so to take an old<br>[27:08] prophecy that doesn't actually apply to<br>[27:10] this and then just sort of apply it<br>[27:12] would have been understood at least at<br>[27:14] the time to have been a not this is the<br>[27:18] absolute fulfillment of this prophecy,<br>[27:20] but like look at this echo to something<br>[27:22] in the past or something.<br>[27:24] >> Yeah. And and I think there's truth to<br>[27:25] that. Obviously, we we've already talked<br>[27:27] about how the Septuagen is is fiddling<br>[27:29] with the with the rendering itself,<br>[27:31] right?<br>[27:32] >> Um and so so yeah, absolutely. it is it<br>[27:35] is following in the the footsteps of uh<br>[27:39] other uh Greco Roman Jewish interpretive<br>[27:43] practices. In that sense, it's not an<br>[27:44] outlier.<br>[27:45] >> Right?<br>[27:46] >> Now, to the degree I would agree with<br>[27:49] the notion that like everybody knew and<br>[27:53] it was transparently just this is how we<br>[27:56] play with the text. We're not taking it<br>[27:57] seriously. Um I don't know about that. I<br>[28:00] I think that and and<br>[28:04] Um, I there's a there's an argument to<br>[28:07] be had there.<br>[28:08] >> Um,<br>[28:08] >> although it does I mean it does sound<br>[28:10] like to me to my untrained ear it sounds<br>[28:13] like Matthew is making hard claims. It<br>[28:16] doesn't it doesn't sound like it's like<br>[28:18] hey let's just play with this a little<br>[28:19] bit and see what we think about.<br>[28:20] >> Yeah. Have fun with it. Um and and I<br>[28:23] don't think Dr. Chaffy is suggesting<br>[28:26] this is just their creative exoggetical<br>[28:28] uh practice. I I don't think that's the<br>[28:31] claim. I think the claim is this is<br>[28:33] absolutely historical and this is what<br>[28:37] the prophets were talking about and this<br>[28:39] is how Jesus uh fulfilled all these<br>[28:42] prophecies and that's how you can know<br>[28:45] that Jesus actually resurrected like I I<br>[28:48] that seems to be the argument coming<br>[28:50] from the folks who are appealing to<br>[28:52] these things today. Now, now whether or<br>[28:54] not the original audience of the Gospel<br>[28:56] of Matthew would have been like, "Oh, I<br>[28:58] didn't know that was what that was<br>[29:00] about, uh, I I think that depends on the<br>[29:03] audience you reconstruct." And and so,<br>[29:06] um, I think that's a little fuzzier and<br>[29:08] also not really the the point of what<br>[29:11] we're doing here. Um,<br>[29:13] >> but not not to say you're going off<br>[29:15] topic, but, um, but just to say I<br>[29:18] >> Yeah, I am I am a little lost [laughter]<br>[29:20] in the woods here. So, let's uh let's<br>[29:22] should we get back into some more? Uh<br>[29:24] >> yeah, let's let's do a few more of<br>[29:25] these. Yeah. Um I think the the next one<br>[29:27] that's uh brought up is, "Oh, you and<br>[29:31] you, oh Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,<br>[29:33] are by no means least among the rulers<br>[29:35] of Judah. For from you shall come a<br>[29:38] ruler who will shepherd my people<br>[29:40] Israel." That's Matthew 2:6. And this is<br>[29:42] obviously riffing on Micah 52, which uh<br>[29:47] if I can just pull it up here real<br>[29:49] quick, is a uh is a prophecy that says<br>[29:53] um well, it starts in 51, doesn't it? It<br>[29:56] depends on how you divide this up.<br>[29:58] [laughter]<br>[29:59] But you, oh Bethlehem of Ephraata, who<br>[30:02] are one of the little clans of Judah,<br>[30:05] [laughter] from you shall come forth<br>[30:07] from me one who is to rule in Israel,<br>[30:09] whose origin is from of old, from<br>[30:11] ancient days. So that's the that's the<br>[30:14] messianic prophecy as it was as it came<br>[30:18] to be understood by the time of the New<br>[30:20] Testament from Micah 5. Now in the<br>[30:24] original context this is uh probably<br>[30:27] pre-exilic and the expectation is that<br>[30:30] there is a there is a an Israelite king<br>[30:33] probably from the line of David uh who<br>[30:36] is going to arise and uh rule the people<br>[30:41] and and lead the people and and there<br>[30:43] are a lot of details about what's going<br>[30:44] on in there that are still hotly debated<br>[30:46] by scholars but nobody thinks this is<br>[30:50] actually about somebody who's going to<br>[30:51] be born 700 years later. This is about<br>[30:53] someone who is supposed to shepherd<br>[30:55] Israel uh prior to the exile. And<br>[30:59] >> but this is this is why what the reason<br>[31:01] we're bringing this up is that this is<br>[31:02] why the uh the the gospels<br>[31:07] >> have to swirl this guy into Bethlehem<br>[31:10] somehow.<br>[31:10] >> Yes. And this is and this is an<br>[31:12] interesting point to bring up. Again,<br>[31:14] Paul and and the Gospel of Mark say<br>[31:17] nothing about Bethlehem. In fact, there<br>[31:19] are only three places where the word<br>[31:22] Bethlehem ever occurs in all of the New<br>[31:24] Testament. One is in Matthew's nativity<br>[31:26] account, one is in Luke's n well,<br>[31:29] multiple um occurrences, but one place<br>[31:32] is Matthew's nativity account, one place<br>[31:34] is Luke's nativity account, and then<br>[31:35] there's a single verse in the Gospel of<br>[31:37] John, I think, in chapter 7 that<br>[31:40] references the Messiah being born in<br>[31:43] Bethlehem. And the one of the reasons we<br>[31:47] think, hey, maybe this is just something<br>[31:49] that was that was added later is because<br>[31:51] both Matthew and Luke have very<br>[31:53] different ways of getting Jesus to<br>[31:56] Bethlehem,<br>[31:57] >> right?<br>[31:58] >> Because Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth. And<br>[32:01] so both of them have to get Jesus back<br>[32:03] to Nazareth so he can be raised in<br>[32:06] Nazareth and be of Nazareth. uh middle<br>[32:10] name of, you know, uh Nazareth, Jesus of<br>[32:13] here. Um<br>[32:16] >> so they have very different ways of<br>[32:18] doing it. And if you just read Matthew,<br>[32:20] if you do not have the Gospel of Luke,<br>[32:22] if you just read Matthew,<br>[32:24] >> Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem.<br>[32:28] >> Yeah.<br>[32:28] >> Yeah. And they then they take off. Herod<br>[32:31] does his thing and they got to they got<br>[32:33] to uh scramble into Egypt as refugees.<br>[32:36] And then they want to come back after<br>[32:38] Herod's dead, but Herod's son Archelaus<br>[32:40] is ruling in Judea. And so they've got<br>[32:42] to head north. And it says they settle<br>[32:44] in Nazareth, which is not what you do<br>[32:48] when you're returning home. It's what<br>[32:50] you do when you're going to find a new<br>[32:52] place to live,<br>[32:53] >> right?<br>[32:54] >> Um and so the Gospel of Luke is entirely<br>[32:57] different. They live in Nazareth.<br>[32:58] They're just going down to Bethlehem<br>[33:01] because of this census thing that is<br>[33:03] going on that we're going to talk about<br>[33:05] later. Um<br>[33:06] >> yeah. So the so the why and the reason<br>[33:10] behind this is just that we have to in<br>[33:12] for the fulfillment of prophecy sake we<br>[33:15] have to get him to be both from Nazareth<br>[33:18] and from Bethlehem. Is that correct?<br>[33:21] >> Yes. It's he's Jesus of Nazareth.<br>[33:24] Everybody knows where he came from. Uh<br>[33:27] but we somehow got to have him born in<br>[33:29] Bethlehem.<br>[33:30] >> Okay. So, so we have two completely<br>[33:32] different stories about how Jesus of<br>[33:35] Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem.<br>[33:37] >> Yeah.<br>[33:38] >> Um and and that is and and scholars<br>[33:40] think this is probably because after<br>[33:42] Jesus's death when stories about, oh,<br>[33:44] this is the Messiah. He resurrected. Uh<br>[33:47] game on game on everybody. Uh people<br>[33:49] were going, "Wait a minute. Wait a<br>[33:50] minute. This is Jesus of Nazareth." But<br>[33:53] the Messiah is supposed to come from<br>[33:55] Bethlehem. At least last time I checked<br>[33:57] Micah 5, uh the Messiah was supposed to<br>[34:00] come from Bethlehem. And so the story<br>[34:01] develops. So yeah, nobody nobody knows<br>[34:05] about it, but he actually was born in<br>[34:06] Bethlehem. Um so so I think that's<br>[34:09] probably what's going on there.<br>[34:12] >> All right,<br>[34:12] >> which brings up the next uh prophecy<br>[34:15] that that he fulfilled, which is not<br>[34:18] actually a prophecy.<br>[34:20] >> What? How dare you? [laughter]<br>[34:23] So, uh, we we go down to Matthew 2:18<br>[34:26] and we have, uh, Herod, uh, the<br>[34:28] slaughter of the innocents.<br>[34:30] >> Yes.<br>[34:30] >> Not a part of Luke. Uh, but<br>[34:34] >> and that one feels like a pretty strong<br>[34:36] oversight. That one feels like, oo,<br>[34:38] Luke, come on, man. [laughter]<br>[34:39] What are you doing?<br>[34:40] >> Yeah. Um, and the reason all these<br>[34:43] prophecy fulfillment things are in<br>[34:45] Matthew is because Matthew was the one<br>[34:46] who was like, we got to have him<br>[34:48] fulfilling all these prophecies. More<br>[34:49] prophecies, more prophecies. Um and so<br>[34:52] >> well and he often is like overtly says<br>[34:55] and this fulfilled the prophecy of X,<br>[34:58] right? He was he was being very overt<br>[35:00] about the whole thing.<br>[35:01] >> Yeah. One of the main rhetorical goals<br>[35:03] of the Gospel of Matthew is to show how<br>[35:05] thoroughly and comprehensively Jesus<br>[35:07] fulfilled messianic prophecy from the<br>[35:09] Hebrew Bible. Even if it's not an actual<br>[35:11] prophecy from the Hebrew Bible. Okay. So<br>[35:13] here in Matthew 21:18 we get a quote. A<br>[35:16] voice was heard in Rama weeping and loud<br>[35:18] lamentation. Rachel weeping for her<br>[35:20] children. and she refused to be<br>[35:21] comforted because they are no more. And<br>[35:24] this is from Jeremiah 31. And this is<br>[35:27] about the exile. It's just a lament,<br>[35:30] >> right?<br>[35:30] >> And and this is something that that<br>[35:32] happens quite a bit in the gospels where<br>[35:34] they take something that is lamenting<br>[35:36] something that has already happened and<br>[35:38] they flip it and they say, "Oh, this is<br>[35:41] about the future. This is about uh this<br>[35:43] thing that just happened and uh and this<br>[35:45] is this is about Jesus." And so<br>[35:48] obviously this is about Herod killing<br>[35:50] all the innocent people in Bethlehem<br>[35:52] because Rama is not by Bethlehem. Um so<br>[35:57] [laughter]<br>[35:58] >> like Bethlehem is like six miles south<br>[36:00] of Jerusalem. Rama is like six miles<br>[36:02] north of Jerusalem. So<br>[36:04] >> well someone was that weeping and<br>[36:06] lamentation was loud.<br>[36:08] >> It was a very loud lamentation.<br>[36:11] >> Yeah. So, uh, probably not. That one's<br>[36:15] not as much of a bullseye as, uh, as the<br>[36:18] others also weren't. So, um,<br>[36:20] >> it's a slant prophecy. [laughter]<br>[36:24] >> Uh, and then just a few verses before<br>[36:26] that, we have, uh, because of Herod's<br>[36:29] slaughtering of the innocent, we have<br>[36:31] uh, Joseph and uh, Mary grabbing Jesus<br>[36:35] and running off to Egypt. And then we<br>[36:38] have out of Egypt I have called my son<br>[36:40] which is another nonprophecy that comes<br>[36:43] from the book of Hosea. Uh chapter 11<br>[36:46] verse the first and that is uh when<br>[36:50] Israel was a child I loved him and out<br>[36:52] of Egypt I called my son. The more I<br>[36:55] called them the more they went from me.<br>[36:57] They kept sacrificing to the balls<br>[37:00] and offering incense to idols. So, this<br>[37:03] this is about Israel coming out of Egypt<br>[37:06] with the Exodus and just not being able<br>[37:09] to figure out um keep those dirty balls<br>[37:12] out of your mouth.<br>[37:13] >> Keep your balls to yourself, man.<br>[37:14] >> Yeah, you don't know where they've been.<br>[37:16] Um so so another another thing that is<br>[37:18] not really a prophecy but is something<br>[37:20] that the the author of Matthew and and<br>[37:24] certainly this is something that you you<br>[37:26] see in a lot of biblical hermeneutics<br>[37:30] and a lot of biblical exesus is just see<br>[37:32] resonances. Oh this is just like this<br>[37:34] thing that happened over there.<br>[37:36] >> Boom prophecy roasted. Um it gets to be<br>[37:40] a prophecy even though it was it was<br>[37:42] never understood that way. is your<br>[37:44] understanding of this one because it is<br>[37:48] confusing why Matthew sent them to Egypt<br>[37:51] when nobody else talks about him going<br>[37:53] to Egypt or do other people talk about<br>[37:55] him going to Egypt? I don't know.<br>[37:57] >> Uh so like is it your understanding that<br>[38:00] Matthew took this Hosea and was just<br>[38:02] like I'm going to run with that. That's<br>[38:05] I'm just going with it and just uh threw<br>[38:07] it into the story. It's so confusing to<br>[38:09] me because you're right, out of Egypt I<br>[38:13] called my son<br>[38:15] is very clearly a reference in Hosea to,<br>[38:19] you know, to the the people of Israel. U<br>[38:24] I don't I it's so weird to me. Why<br>[38:26] [laughter] why why put him in Egypt? Um,<br>[38:29] I I think it's part it it's a pretty<br>[38:31] complex constellation of events that<br>[38:33] that Matthew has constructed here, but<br>[38:36] you need to get Jesus Jesus to Nazareth.<br>[38:39] Luke has Jesus uh or at least Jesus's<br>[38:41] parents starting in Nazareth. Matthew<br>[38:44] does not. So, how do you get him to<br>[38:45] Nazareth? Well, if you have him leave,<br>[38:49] >> you just scare him out of Bethlehem.<br>[38:52] >> Yeah. You scare him out of Bethlehem. He<br>[38:53] comes back, but he can't resettle in<br>[38:56] Bethlehem,<br>[38:57] >> right? You need him in Nazareth. Okay.<br>[38:59] Well, you have Archelaus ruling in<br>[39:01] Judea, but guess what? Archelaus was not<br>[39:03] ruling in Galilee. Okay, we can get<br>[39:05] Jesus to Galilee. That's how we get him<br>[39:07] to Nazareth. He's he's got to leave,<br>[39:10] come back when Herod is dead, but then<br>[39:12] because somebody else took that part of<br>[39:15] Herod's kingdom, then Herod's direct<br>[39:18] line is no longer um ruling over<br>[39:21] Galilee, we can have them settle in<br>[39:23] Nazareth. Okay, where's he going? Why is<br>[39:25] he getting out of of uh Bethlehem? Oh,<br>[39:29] let's get him to Egypt because we've got<br>[39:31] this passage that says, "I have called<br>[39:32] my son out of Egypt." And let's get him<br>[39:34] to Egypt because of Herod's slaughtering<br>[39:38] of the innocent. Like, it's it's a very<br>[39:40] complex um procession of events, but it<br>[39:44] all it all fits together quite well. It<br>[39:47] is a it's a dramatic story that has<br>[39:51] Jesus get from Bethlehem up to Nazareth<br>[39:54] and allows Matthew to say, "Oh,<br>[39:56] prophecy. Oh, prophecy. Guess guess<br>[39:59] what? Prophecy." Um, along the way. So,<br>[40:03] >> okay.<br>[40:04] >> And,<br>[40:04] >> and I just had to look it up and remind<br>[40:05] myself Nazareth<br>[40:07] >> is way up north. It's like,<br>[40:09] >> yes,<br>[40:10] >> 150 kilometers north of Jerusalem. And<br>[40:14] Bethlehem's like right next to<br>[40:15] Jerusalem. Uh it it's like six<br>[40:18] kilometers or miles. I I forget which<br>[40:20] one. Six is the number though. Uh south<br>[40:23] southwest just barely a little bit west<br>[40:25] of uh Jerusalem. Okay.<br>[40:28] >> Yeah. So uh like if you if you're<br>[40:31] standing on uh in a high point in<br>[40:34] Jerusalem, you can just make out one of<br>[40:36] the hilltops of uh of Bethlehem if<br>[40:39] you're looking south. Uh and you know<br>[40:41] what to look for.<br>[40:43] So um then we got an interesting one<br>[40:47] >> that uh God warned Joseph in a dream not<br>[40:50] to go back to Judea. So instead he took<br>[40:51] Mary and Jesus to Nazareth and Galilee<br>[40:54] that what was spoken by the prophets<br>[40:55] might be fulfilled that he would be<br>[40:57] called a Nazarene.<br>[41:00] And what I think is interesting here is,<br>[41:02] and this is another reason to think that<br>[41:04] Matthew does not have Joseph and Mary in<br>[41:06] Nazareth prior to Bethlehem is if this<br>[41:10] prophecy is that he would be called a<br>[41:12] Nazarene, why didn't Matthew say, "So<br>[41:15] they went home or why like he he has<br>[41:18] this decision to go to Nazareth and that<br>[41:21] decision is what ultimately fulfills<br>[41:23] this prophecy which<br>[41:26] it does not seem to be motivated by any<br>[41:29] kind of previous connections to this<br>[41:31] place at all. So, but the the problem is<br>[41:35] there's no part of the Hebrew Bible that<br>[41:36] says he would be called a Nazarene.<br>[41:38] [laughter]<br>[41:41] >> So, that's a that's a reference to a<br>[41:43] prophecy that we have no knowledge of.<br>[41:46] >> Well, and and the there are two ways<br>[41:49] that this has traditionally been<br>[41:50] answered and one is more common these<br>[41:52] days than the other. Uh one is that he<br>[41:56] would uh he would Nazarene is really<br>[41:59] supposed to be like Nazerite.<br>[42:02] >> Okay. And those two things ju just to<br>[42:04] those two things are not even related<br>[42:06] conceptually. Is that right?<br>[42:08] >> They are not related conceptually.<br>[42:09] However, the way they are written in<br>[42:11] Greek transliteration is very close<br>[42:13] together.<br>[42:14] >> Right. So, um, but they like there's<br>[42:19] nothing in the Hebrew Bible that says<br>[42:21] the Messiah would be a Nazerite either,<br>[42:23] >> right?<br>[42:24] >> Uh, and the other thing is that it could<br>[42:26] be something from Isaiah 11:1, which<br>[42:30] talks about a uh, a chute shall come out<br>[42:33] from the stump of Jesse and a branch<br>[42:36] shall grow out of his roots. And Jesse<br>[42:38] is David's father. So, it's Davidic. And<br>[42:42] it just so happens that um the word for<br>[42:47] um the branch shall grow out of his<br>[42:50] roots is netzer. And so the the claim is<br>[42:55] that Isaiah 11:1 basically says the<br>[42:59] Messiah will be a Netzer or a Nazarene<br>[43:04] if [laughter]<br>[43:05] uh if you like. So it's still squinting<br>[43:09] at this pretty hard.<br>[43:11] >> Yeah. to try to make a connection there.<br>[43:14] But it it and it might be that Matthew<br>[43:16] was like, "We got to have a prophecy<br>[43:18] here. Come on, let's find something."<br>[43:20] And they were like, "Neter is like, I<br>[43:22] can work with that. I can work with<br>[43:23] that. Let's do Nazarene. That sounds<br>[43:26] like he's from Nazareth."<br>[43:28] >> It's also possible that there were, you<br>[43:30] know, that there was just a Nazarene<br>[43:32] prophecy going around that just wasn't<br>[43:34] that we don't have or whatever.<br>[43:37] >> Yeah. It could have been something that<br>[43:38] they were like, "This is the Agraa, the<br>[43:40] unwritten prophecy." Or it could be<br>[43:42] something that was in some text that we<br>[43:45] just don't have anymore that that at<br>[43:46] that time the author of the Gospel of<br>[43:48] Matthew was like, "I can buy that being<br>[43:51] scripture." Um, so yeah.<br>[43:53] >> So what we have in Matthew is a series<br>[43:57] of things that really apart from just<br>[44:00] the identification of Nazareth and the<br>[44:02] identification of Bethlehem are not in<br>[44:04] Luke.<br>[44:05] >> Yeah. um where Matthew is is telling the<br>[44:09] story in in their own unique way to have<br>[44:13] Jesus fulfilling these prophecies.<br>[44:16] And the and the data don't support the<br>[44:18] conclusion that that Jesus actually<br>[44:19] fulfilled these prophecies.<br>[44:22] The data I I would argue don't even<br>[44:24] indicate he was born in Bethlehem. I<br>[44:25] think most likely he was probably born<br>[44:27] in Nazareth. And then at long after he<br>[44:29] died, people were like, "Who's going to<br>[44:31] stop us from from saying he was born in<br>[44:33] Bethlehem?"<br>[44:33] >> We can say whatever we want.<br>[44:35] the president. Um, [laughter] you know,<br>[44:37] they they were just like, "Yeah, we can<br>[44:39] we can have him born in Bethlehem." And<br>[44:40] and these are ways to tell the stories<br>[44:42] in in ways that make it seem like you're<br>[44:44] fulfilling prophecies,<br>[44:46] >> even when they're not even prophecies to<br>[44:48] begin with.<br>[44:49] >> Yeah. Just<br>[44:50] >> so make throw a few in. Why not make a<br>[44:53] few up? It's fine.<br>[44:55] >> Oh my god. And so I I think<br>[44:58] [sighs and gasps] I think if if you want<br>[45:00] the fulfillment of prophecy to be<br>[45:02] evidence of something, you got to do an<br>[45:04] awful lot better than this. Uh because<br>[45:06] these that like it's easy to fulfill<br>[45:09] prophecy when you're the one telling the<br>[45:11] story. [laughter]<br>[45:12] >> Um and and if your whole goal is to show<br>[45:14] that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, you're a<br>[45:17] motivator. You're excuse me, you're a<br>[45:19] motivated<br>[45:20] crafter of a specific kind of story.<br>[45:23] >> Yeah. So, um, yeah, I just I just find<br>[45:26] that a stretch.<br>[45:30] [music]<br>[45:33] You know, you don't have to let big<br>[45:34] wireless and your overpriced phone bill<br>[45:37] suck the joy out of the holidays this<br>[45:39] year because right now, all of Mint<br>[45:41] Mobile's unlimited plans are 50% off.<br>[45:45] >> You can get three, six, or 12 months of<br>[45:48] unlimited premium wireless for 15 bucks<br>[45:50] a month. It's their best deal of the<br>[45:52] year. and makes it real easy for you to<br>[45:55] give your expensive wireless bill the<br>[45:57] Scrooge treatment.<br>[45:58] >> Yeah, that'll jingle your bells. Uh,<br>[46:00] listen, Mint Mobile's best deal of the<br>[46:02] year is happening right now. You get 3,<br>[46:05] 6, or 12 months of unlimited high-speed<br>[46:09] data and unlimited talk and text on the<br>[46:12] nation's largest 5G network for $15 a<br>[46:16] month. You can bring your current phone<br>[46:19] and phone number over to Mint. No<br>[46:22] contracts, no nonsense. It's very easy.<br>[46:26] >> Yeah, this is a wonderful product. Uh we<br>[46:28] use it in our household and I think<br>[46:30] you'll like it too. Turn your expensive<br>[46:32] wireless present into a huge wireless<br>[46:34] savings future by switching to Mint.<br>[46:36] Shop Mint unlimited plans at<br>[46:38] mintmobile.com/dogma.<br>[46:41] That's mintmobile.com/dogma.<br>[46:44] Limited time offer, upfront payment of<br>[46:47] $45 for three month, $90 for six month,<br>[46:49] or $180 for 12 month. Plan required $15<br>[46:53] a month equivalent. Taxes and fees<br>[46:55] extra. Initial plan terms only. Over 35<br>[46:58] gigabytes may slow when network is busy.<br>[47:00] Capable device required. Availability<br>[47:02] speed and coverage varies. cment.com.<br>[47:06] You know, it's the holiday season and<br>[47:09] that means gift giving is in the air and<br>[47:12] that for me, I don't know about you,<br>[47:14] Dan, but for me, this has been a<br>[47:16] perennial problem. I am not good at<br>[47:20] figuring out what to get. You know, you<br>[47:22] get there and you're like, what does<br>[47:23] grandpa want? I<br>[47:24] >> Yeah,<br>[47:25] >> I I don't know, a tie. No, you don't get<br>[47:27] him a tie. Get no one ties for<br>[47:30] Christmas. However, one of the things<br>[47:33] that makes a fantastic present is<br>[47:37] memories. And the way that you can do<br>[47:39] that, one of the best ways you can do<br>[47:41] that is with a skylight frame. You<br>[47:45] preload it with a bunch of your favorite<br>[47:47] photos so that when the recipient opens<br>[47:50] it up, it's already full of special<br>[47:52] memories. It's meaningful. It's<br>[47:55] personal. And it's so easy to do that<br>[47:58] even the least techsavvy person in your<br>[48:00] family is going to be able to to have a<br>[48:03] great time with it.<br>[48:04] >> Yeah. Skylight Frame is a digital<br>[48:06] picture frame you can send photos to.<br>[48:08] They appear in seconds. It's the perfect<br>[48:10] gift for loved ones. Uh my wife's<br>[48:13] parents have one. We got it for him a<br>[48:15] bit ago. Their quick one minute setup is<br>[48:18] easy for all ages or tech skill levels<br>[48:20] to use. You don't need an app. You don't<br>[48:22] need an a subscription. And if you<br>[48:24] aren't happy with your frame, you can<br>[48:26] return it within 4 months for a full<br>[48:27] refund, no questions asked. Plus, if<br>[48:30] your device experiences a covered issue<br>[48:32] within the first 3 years, Skylight will<br>[48:34] replace it free of charge. Find out why<br>[48:36] the Today Show, Wall Street Journal,<br>[48:38] Huffost, and Tom's Guide all recommend<br>[48:41] the Skylight frame. Right now, Skylight<br>[48:44] is offering our listeners $20 off their<br>[48:47] 10-in frames by going to my<br>[48:49] skylight.com/dogma.<br>[48:52] Go to mys skylight.com/dogma<br>[48:55] for $20 off your 10-in frame. That's my<br>[48:59] ky<br>[49:01] ght.com/dogma.<br>[49:05] Well, friends, we've talked about AG1<br>[49:06] before, but I wanted to reintroduce us<br>[49:09] all to AG1. This is a daily health<br>[49:13] drink. It combines all the things that<br>[49:15] you're going to need. If you take a<br>[49:17] multivitamin, you don't need to take a<br>[49:19] multivitamin because this has your<br>[49:20] multivitamin. It has your pre and<br>[49:22] probiotics. It's got superfoods,<br>[49:24] antioxidants, and it's all combined into<br>[49:27] one simple green scoop. It's one of the<br>[49:30] easiest things you can do to support<br>[49:32] your body every day. And this time of<br>[49:36] year, it's as important as ever to be<br>[49:38] proactive about supporting your immune<br>[49:40] health. We're all busy. I have a busy<br>[49:43] travel schedule. Last week, I was in<br>[49:44] Boston and then in LA before coming back<br>[49:46] home, and that really does damage to my<br>[49:50] immune system, uh if you're traveling<br>[49:52] over the holidays, that can do it as<br>[49:54] well. It can be hard to maintain a<br>[49:56] balanced diet, give your body the<br>[49:57] nutrients it needs, and also give your<br>[49:59] immune system the daily support it<br>[50:02] needs. And that is where AG1 comes in.<br>[50:06] >> Yeah. You know, you talk about travel. I<br>[50:08] take their little travel packs with me.<br>[50:10] It's super easy. I, you know, the travel<br>[50:12] packs are so convenient. Just pour one<br>[50:14] into my glass of water in the morning<br>[50:16] and I'm off to the races. And, you know,<br>[50:19] you talk about this time of year, I'm<br>[50:21] not eating the healthiest. I got to be<br>[50:23] honest. Uh, this time of year, I'm uh<br>[50:25] I'm going for the uh the cookies and and<br>[50:28] the uh the cakes and whatever. So, it's<br>[50:31] nice to know that I start off every day<br>[50:33] with a strong, very healthy, vitaminrich<br>[50:38] meal and uh and then I'm good to go for<br>[50:40] the day.<br>[50:40] >> And AG1 now comes in several different<br>[50:43] flavors. They've got the original,<br>[50:44] citrus, berry, and tropical. I prefer<br>[50:47] the berry. You mentioned you just uh<br>[50:49] tried out the tropical.<br>[50:50] >> Just this morning, I had my tropical.<br>[50:52] It's nice. Uh, I was worried it would be<br>[50:54] overpoweringly tropical, but it is<br>[50:56] actually a beautifully balanced tropical<br>[50:59] flavor profile. Really enjoy it. AG1 has<br>[51:03] their best offer ever. If you head to<br>[51:05] drinkagg.com/dogma,<br>[51:09] you'll get the welcome kit, a morning<br>[51:10] person hat, a bottle of vitamin D3 plus<br>[51:13] K2, an AG1 flavor sampler, and you'll<br>[51:17] get to try their new sleep supplement<br>[51:19] AGZ for free, which has been a gamecher<br>[51:22] for my nightly routine. That's drink<br>[51:25] ag.com/dogma<br>[51:28] for $126<br>[51:30] in free gifts for new subscribers.<br>[51:34] other uh prophecy fulfillment in this<br>[51:37] article from Answers in Genesis isn't<br>[51:39] doesn't even merit talking about. I<br>[51:42] mean, things like Nazareth was looked<br>[51:44] upon with scorn. Uh which which meant<br>[51:47] that uh it fulfilled the idea that the<br>[51:50] Messiah would be despised and rejected<br>[51:52] of men?<br>[51:54] >> Come on. [laughter]<br>[51:56] >> Really? We're gonna stretch that hard?<br>[51:58] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's that's quite a reach.<br>[52:01] But but you know these these kinds of<br>[52:04] articles are not for critical thinkers.<br>[52:06] They're for people who really want to<br>[52:07] believe and just want to be made to feel<br>[52:10] like they have good reason to believe<br>[52:12] because even even some of the things in<br>[52:13] here are about uh like when when we get<br>[52:17] to the he would be called a Nazarene<br>[52:19] prophecy like they introduce these<br>[52:21] options and it says however there are a<br>[52:23] few plausible solutions to this dilemma.<br>[52:26] So what is the argument? The argument is<br>[52:28] that it's plausible. Um, here are ways<br>[52:32] that we can uh argue that it's<br>[52:34] plausible. So, it it's not about what's<br>[52:36] most likely. It's about and and I would<br>[52:38] say plausible is even a little bit of a<br>[52:40] stretch. It's uh it's that tiny little<br>[52:43] sliver of not impossible that<br>[52:45] apologetics is concerned to to jin up.<br>[52:47] Well, if that's where we're going to go,<br>[52:49] if we're going to talk about that, let's<br>[52:51] do some sorry apologetics and move on to<br>[52:54] our next segment.<br>[52:57] All right. So, sorry it's apologetics.<br>[53:01] Uh we're we're gonna get to this. Uh you<br>[53:04] Dan sent me a document. Oh, let me pull<br>[53:07] it up. It's somewhere.<br>[53:09] >> Uh here we go. Uh and these are give us<br>[53:13] the setup for what for what uh what this<br>[53:16] is.<br>[53:16] >> Okay. So I I've frequently pointed out<br>[53:19] that uh Luke chapter 1 and two one<br>[53:25] contradict the Gospel of Matthew, but<br>[53:27] two contradict themselves. Uh and they<br>[53:30] and they contradict the Gospel of<br>[53:31] Matthew mainly in the fact that uh we<br>[53:35] we've talked about some of it. Like<br>[53:37] Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in<br>[53:40] Bethlehem. They have nothing to do with<br>[53:42] Nazareth until they're coming back from<br>[53:46] uh from their refugee stint and are<br>[53:49] forced to go up to Galilee uh in<br>[53:52] fulfillment of some prophecy that might<br>[53:55] exist [laughter] somewhere. Uh so so<br>[53:57] that's one example. Uh you know Luke has<br>[54:00] uh Jesus is born in Bethlehem and they<br>[54:02] hang out. They're hanging out with<br>[54:04] family. They go to the temple. They<br>[54:05] fulfill what's required of them and then<br>[54:07] they just mosey on back to Nazareth.<br>[54:09] >> Right? You do not do not get the sense<br>[54:13] that the king is trying to murder the<br>[54:18] baby in the Gospel of Luke. Like that's<br>[54:20] fleeing or whatever.<br>[54:21] >> Yes. Yes. And you know, and they're<br>[54:24] like, well, the author just didn't think<br>[54:26] it was important. It's like that is<br>[54:28] pretty profound authoral neglect to be<br>[54:32] like, yeah, the they went to the temple.<br>[54:34] This is really important that you know<br>[54:35] that they filled all this stuff. What<br>[54:37] about the fact that the king tried to<br>[54:39] murder him and so they had to flee to<br>[54:41] another country? Uh, no, not important.<br>[54:44] Um, so<br>[54:44] >> well, let let's go through uh your your<br>[54:47] arguments and objections. You what<br>[54:49] you've done is you you've separated this<br>[54:50] out into uh you've made some arguments.<br>[54:53] >> Yes, we're going to do some roleplaying<br>[54:55] here<br>[54:55] >> and I'm I'm going I'm going to make the<br>[54:58] apologetic uh objection to your to to<br>[55:01] whatever your claims are. So,<br>[55:02] >> and feel free to editorialize to your<br>[55:04] heart's content. Oh, you know I will.<br>[55:07] You know I will.<br>[55:08] >> Glad to hear that. Go.<br>[55:10] >> Okay. So, uh, what we're going to start<br>[55:13] with the fact that the Bethlehem story<br>[55:15] is likely a secondary addition to the<br>[55:17] Jesus tradition. We've already talked<br>[55:18] about some of the reasons why, right?<br>[55:20] But one of them is the fact that it's<br>[55:22] never even mentioned in the letters or<br>[55:24] Paul uh, letters of Paul or in the<br>[55:25] Gospel of Mark. And again, the word<br>[55:28] Bethlehem only ever occurs in Matthew's<br>[55:31] nativity account, Luke's nativity<br>[55:33] account, and John's reference to the<br>[55:36] prophecy of the Messiah coming from<br>[55:39] Bethlehem.<br>[55:40] >> Aha. This, my friend, is the fallacy of<br>[55:44] the argument from silence.<br>[55:47] >> Yes.<br>[55:47] >> Just because they didn't mention it<br>[55:50] doesn't mean it didn't happen. doesn't<br>[55:52] mean it doesn't happen. They were not<br>[55:55] paying attention to [laughter] important<br>[55:57] things.<br>[55:59] >> Yeah. And and you know what I think of<br>[56:00] all the stuff we're going to go through,<br>[56:01] this probably is like the least<br>[56:05] illegitimate. Uh because there is a<br>[56:07] degree to which it is an argument from<br>[56:08] silence.<br>[56:09] >> Yeah.<br>[56:10] >> Uh now there there is a point uh that a<br>[56:12] lot of people will make. An argument<br>[56:14] from silence is not a fallacy. if we<br>[56:17] should have it, if we should expect to<br>[56:19] see it, if they should have mentioned<br>[56:21] it. And and I think that that is not<br>[56:24] necessarily<br>[56:26] true, at least of the uh the writings of<br>[56:29] Paul. Um because Paul's not really about<br>[56:32] his temporal life. Uh we have a passing<br>[56:35] reference to him being born of a woman,<br>[56:37] but that's serving a more uh a more um<br>[56:40] theological point. Well, and Paul's not<br>[56:42] even not claiming to have met Jesus,<br>[56:46] >> right?<br>[56:46] >> Whereas these gospel authors, we're at<br>[56:49] least the if the authorship attribution<br>[56:52] were correct, we would be assuming that<br>[56:54] the authors had actually met and hung<br>[56:57] out with Jesus.<br>[56:58] >> Yes. Um now, now<br>[57:01] the like Mark is supposed to have just<br>[57:03] been the interpreter for Peter, so he<br>[57:06] not necessarily<br>[57:08] >> uh knew stuff. Luke is, you know, doing<br>[57:11] all this investigating. So, um, to to a<br>[57:14] degree, yeah, we would expect them to<br>[57:15] have hung out with them. So, it is true<br>[57:18] that that's a bit of an argument from<br>[57:20] Silence. Mark, I think you would expect<br>[57:22] some kind of reference to this.<br>[57:24] >> But what's what's interesting is even<br>[57:27] just outside of the nativity accounts of<br>[57:30] both Matthew and Luke, they never refer<br>[57:32] to Jesus having come from Bethlehem.<br>[57:34] It's always Jesus of Nazareth. And<br>[57:36] scholars think that the nativity account<br>[57:38] in Luke is a secondary edition. And<br>[57:40] there are even scholars who think the<br>[57:41] nativity account in Matthew is a<br>[57:43] secondary edition. and the fact that<br>[57:45] they never you never have a reference<br>[57:47] back to anything that happened before<br>[57:49] Jesus's baptism in any of the gospels<br>[57:53] apart from the nativity accounts<br>[57:55] themselves<br>[57:56] is suggestive that the his origins were<br>[58:01] not important to the stories that were<br>[58:03] in circulation uh about<br>[58:06] uh Jesus. It's once his ministry begins<br>[58:10] that's when Jesus becomes relevant to<br>[58:13] everybody. And so you've got those<br>[58:15] nativity accounts, but outside of that,<br>[58:17] there there just doesn't seem to be any<br>[58:19] relevance to Jesus's origins and<br>[58:22] certainly no indication about being born<br>[58:24] in Bethlehem. But<br>[58:26] >> we've talked about other reasons to<br>[58:27] think this is a secondary edition as<br>[58:30] well. So if we're just isolating that<br>[58:32] one point, I would say to some degree<br>[58:35] touch.<br>[58:36] >> Okay.<br>[58:36] >> Um and and would say but there are a lot<br>[58:39] of other things that contribute to that<br>[58:41] conclusion as well. And and this is one<br>[58:43] of the conclusions I think is I would<br>[58:45] say is probable is most likely, but it's<br>[58:48] certainly not a slam dunk. And<br>[58:50] >> I'm I'm going to guess we're not going<br>[58:52] to get a lot of touches in this. Uh<br>[58:54] >> I was about to say that's the last<br>[58:56] you're going to hear that from me.<br>[58:57] [laughter] So So relish it. [snorts]<br>[59:01] >> All right. Next.<br>[59:03] Uh, next, Matthew, and and we talked<br>[59:06] about this in the previous segment,<br>[59:07] seems to have Joseph and Mary living in<br>[59:09] Bethlehem and only later settling in<br>[59:11] Nazareth as a result of their desire not<br>[59:13] to return to Bethlehem in light of<br>[59:15] Archelaus's rule in Judea.<br>[59:18] Aha. But says, uh, Mr. Apologist coming<br>[59:23] in, uh, Matthew never says that Joseph<br>[59:26] and Mary were from Bethle, never says<br>[59:29] that they were from Bethlehem and not<br>[59:31] Nazareth. He never claims that. He just<br>[59:34] they just happen to be there then.<br>[59:37] >> Yeah. Yeah. And this is this is a pretty<br>[59:40] common one and and this is uh something<br>[59:42] you see in a lot of the arguments about<br>[59:44] contradictions where you know one<br>[59:46] resurrection story says there was an<br>[59:48] angel and then another resurrection<br>[59:50] story says there were two angels and<br>[59:52] it's like whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa<br>[59:54] whoa. It said there was one. It didn't<br>[59:56] say there weren't two.<br>[59:58] >> Right? To say there's an angel only<br>[60:00] means there's at least one. Yeah.<br>[60:03] >> If if it says there's an angel, all that<br>[60:05] means is there was at least one angel.<br>[60:07] >> And if it says there were two angels,<br>[60:09] all that means is that there were at<br>[60:10] least two. Could have been billions of<br>[60:12] angels. There could have been angels<br>[60:13] coming out of the cracks in the rocks.<br>[60:16] >> Yeah.<br>[60:16] >> And they only felt it was relevant to<br>[60:18] mention one or two. Um, and and and this<br>[60:22] is a much weaker point because as as we<br>[60:25] pointed out, the the narrative states<br>[60:28] pretty clearly that they are coming back<br>[60:30] out of Egypt and they're like, "Oh, we<br>[60:31] can't go back to Bethlehem. I guess we<br>[60:33] got to go to Galilee." And the text says<br>[60:36] that they settle in Galilee in Nazareth.<br>[60:40] Which is what you say when someone is<br>[60:42] moving somewhere new, not what you say<br>[60:44] when someone is returning home. If this<br>[60:47] is where they were originally from, the<br>[60:49] narrative would be different. This is<br>[60:52] not the way you describe someone<br>[60:55] returning home.<br>[60:56] >> Well, and that that hit home for me when<br>[60:58] I looked at that map just just a few<br>[61:01] minutes ago.<br>[61:01] >> Oh, and saw how far away.<br>[61:03] >> Just because like that is so much<br>[61:04] farther away and there, you know,<br>[61:06] they're on donkey back. If there's even<br>[61:08] a donkey, there's [laughter] not even a<br>[61:10] donkey. But like when you're Yeah. when<br>[61:13] you're going that far out of your way,<br>[61:16] you're uh Yeah, that's you you'd mention<br>[61:19] that that was home. It does feel like<br>[61:22] >> Yeah. And<br>[61:22] >> all right.<br>[61:23] >> Yeah. So, I I don't think that objection<br>[61:26] holds any water. I I think that's a<br>[61:28] pretty weak one.<br>[61:30] >> Okay. Next.<br>[61:32] >> Matthew has Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem<br>[61:34] until they flee to Egypt to escape<br>[61:36] Herod's killing of the innocents and<br>[61:38] only returning to settle in Nazareth<br>[61:39] after Herod's death. Luke 2:39 has them<br>[61:44] peacefully returning to Nazareth after<br>[61:46] they fulfill the legal requirements<br>[61:48] related to Jesus's birth. In other<br>[61:50] words, Luke does not seem to know that<br>[61:52] they were literally chased out of the<br>[61:54] country by the king,<br>[61:56] >> right?<br>[61:57] >> And then forced to uh to reside in<br>[62:00] another country before returning to<br>[62:02] Nazareth,<br>[62:03] >> right? And here the objection uh is is<br>[62:08] Yeah. It's just well it doesn't say that<br>[62:11] uh it doesn't preclude the possibility<br>[62:15] that the slaughter of the innocents<br>[62:17] happened and they went into Egypt. It<br>[62:19] just it just doesn't mention it. Yeah.<br>[62:23] And and this is the the same kind of<br>[62:24] thing as as earlier where you take these<br>[62:27] inongruities and suggest that hey it's<br>[62:29] just it's dealer's choice. The author<br>[62:32] could have said something but just<br>[62:33] decided not to.<br>[62:34] >> But again in in this case that is<br>[62:36] >> I thought he was running long. He was<br>[62:38] like, "Oh [laughter] gosh, you know, I<br>[62:40] one needs<br>[62:41] >> just started this story." But<br>[62:42] >> one needs to use the editorial mind uh<br>[62:45] when one [laughter] if you want to craft<br>[62:47] an interesting story.<br>[62:49] >> Yeah. And and my argument would be that<br>[62:52] is pretty criminal neglect to leave out<br>[62:56] that detail.<br>[62:58] >> Yeah. It's a pretty it's a pretty it's a<br>[63:00] it's such a strong detail, too. Like<br>[63:03] that's that that's juicy. That's a juicy<br>[63:06] part of the story. Oh, yeah. Big time.<br>[63:08] And just chronologically, it doesn't<br>[63:10] seem to work because in uh in Matthew,<br>[63:13] Herod says uh says, "When did the star<br>[63:17] appear?" And then goes and uh has<br>[63:20] everyone two years and under killed,<br>[63:22] >> which suggests that this is taking place<br>[63:25] 2 years after Jesus's birth. So Jesus is<br>[63:28] like maybe almost 2 years old, if not<br>[63:31] two years old when this is happening.<br>[63:33] >> And still in Bethlehem. and and still in<br>[63:36] Bethlehem. So, uh another indication<br>[63:40] that they lived in Bethlehem,<br>[63:42] >> right,<br>[63:42] >> in Matthew, but in Luke, it says that<br>[63:46] they uh you know, they had to present<br>[63:47] them at the temple and when all was<br>[63:49] fulfilled, they returned to their own<br>[63:52] city or their own town in Nazareth. And<br>[63:56] then it says<br>[63:58] they visited Jerusalem at the Passover<br>[64:01] every year.<br>[64:04] that does not allow for one them to uh<br>[64:10] flee to Egypt until Herod dies. It does<br>[64:12] not allow for them to be uh persona<br>[64:15] nonrada in Jerusalem for however long.<br>[64:19] It does not allow them to still be<br>[64:21] around in two years when Herod is is on<br>[64:24] the lookout. And it also suggests that<br>[64:28] they were free to come back once a year.<br>[64:31] And so it just it just doesn't fit,<br>[64:34] >> right?<br>[64:34] >> It doesn't fit.<br>[64:35] >> Well, speaking of them coming from<br>[64:38] Nazareth down to uh to [laughter]<br>[64:42] >> Bethlehem, why did they do that? Uh<br>[64:44] >> well, we have<br>[64:46] >> the mechanism in Luke is this this<br>[64:48] notion of a worldwide census. Uh Caesar<br>[64:51] wanted the world to be taxed. So, uh he<br>[64:54] he uh told everybody they had to go to<br>[64:57] their own city to be taxed. And uh the<br>[65:01] point to make here is that Rome would<br>[65:03] not have issued a census requiring<br>[65:05] everyone return to their ancestral<br>[65:06] hometown to register because that one<br>[65:09] wouldn't be possible for many people.<br>[65:11] would nuke the economy for months uh and<br>[65:15] would give the Romans utterly useless<br>[65:18] information because the whole point of<br>[65:20] the census is uh who's living and<br>[65:22] working where so we can tell the people<br>[65:25] who are governing that place this is how<br>[65:27] much we want from you in taxes. So, uh<br>[65:30] the notion that uh you would just go<br>[65:33] wherever you were from uh to register is<br>[65:38] just bafflingly<br>[65:40] just asinine just ahistorical that would<br>[65:43] not have happened.<br>[65:44] >> Uh excuse me Dr. Mlelen but I do believe<br>[65:49] that you are<br>[65:49] >> if that is your real name<br>[65:50] >> if that if that's from an accredited<br>[65:53] university that doctorate [laughter] of<br>[65:55] yours. Uh, but I do think that if you<br>[65:58] went to the British Museum and looked up<br>[66:01] uh P London 9004, the Papyrus 904,<br>[66:06] >> you would see very clearly that uh that<br>[66:09] there was a Roman edict that read gas<br>[66:12] vibious Maximus, prefect of Egypt, says,<br>[66:16] "The enrollment by household being at<br>[66:19] hand, it is necessary to notify all who<br>[66:22] for any cause whatsoever are outside<br>[66:25] their gnomes or territories to return to<br>[66:29] their domestic hearth or home that they<br>[66:33] may accomplish the customary<br>[66:34] dispensation of enrollment and continue<br>[66:38] steadfastly in the husbandry that<br>[66:41] belongs to them.<br>[66:43] >> Yes. So, aha they were they were wait a<br>[66:48] minute I think I see the problem of my<br>[66:50] own argument. [laughter]<br>[66:53] >> Yes. and and that would be that this<br>[66:55] says nothing about ancestral homestead<br>[66:58] or hometown. It says your your hearth.<br>[67:01] Um and and this is talking about<br>[67:03] returning home precisely because people<br>[67:05] traveled. People traveled for work.<br>[67:07] People traveled for pleasure. And if<br>[67:09] they're doing a census, they want to<br>[67:10] know where you live or where your your<br>[67:14] job is.<br>[67:14] >> Yeah. Where's your hearth? Get to your<br>[67:16] hearth.<br>[67:17] >> Get to the hearth. Uh Ali Alioxinfree,<br>[67:20] we need you. [laughter] We need you back<br>[67:21] at your hearth. And and this is<br>[67:23] unrelated to the notion that this census<br>[67:26] would require Joseph to travel to<br>[67:29] Bethlehem. And the the text says that he<br>[67:34] went down to Bethlehem because<br>[67:38] he was of or descended from the house<br>[67:41] and the lineage of David.<br>[67:43] It's not saying that's where he lived.<br>[67:47] It's saying that's where he descended<br>[67:50] from ancestrally. He was of that<br>[67:52] ancestral hometown.<br>[67:54] >> Uh, point of order. Luke 2:3 says that<br>[67:59] everyone went to his own city, which<br>[68:03] suggests hometown rather than ancestral<br>[68:05] hometown. Boom, you got schooled.<br>[68:09] >> Yes, it does say they all went to their<br>[68:10] own towns to be registered in verse<br>[68:13] three. And then it says, "Joseph also<br>[68:15] went from the town of Nazareth in<br>[68:16] Galilee to Judea to the city of David<br>[68:18] called Bethlehem because he was<br>[68:20] descended from the house and family of<br>[68:22] David." So here's the interesting thing<br>[68:23] though. When you go all the way down to<br>[68:27] where it says they went home, which is<br>[68:30] uh I think Luke 2, is it 39? Yes. Uh<br>[68:34] when they had finished everything<br>[68:36] required by the law of the Lord. So So<br>[68:38] this is that um stuff in the temple with<br>[68:41] the baby Jesus and all that. Then<br>[68:43] they're they've fulfilled everything<br>[68:44] that is required of them. They return to<br>[68:48] Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.<br>[68:52] And the Greek is identical<br>[68:54] >> to the Greek of Luke 2:3. In other<br>[68:57] words,<br>[68:58] it says everybody in verse three went to<br>[69:00] their own town. According to Luke 2:39,<br>[69:04] Joseph and Mary's own town,<br>[69:07] exact same Greek, was Nazareth. Oh.<br>[69:10] >> So, if you're saying that the census<br>[69:14] only required you to go to your own<br>[69:16] town, uh then they left their own town,<br>[69:20] >> right? And they they messed up this<br>[69:23] census somehow.<br>[69:24] >> Yes.<br>[69:24] >> One way or another, they messed it up.<br>[69:26] >> Yeah. So, he just misunderstood. Uh it<br>[69:29] was pretty big mistake. He's like, "Ah,<br>[69:33] like I I showed up at SPL a day early<br>[69:36] because I thought I I I am on a<br>[69:38] committee at SBL and I thought our<br>[69:40] committee meeting was on the Friday and<br>[69:42] SPL starts on Saturday." And no, it<br>[69:44] turns out that there are a lot of<br>[69:46] meetings that take place on Friday, but<br>[69:48] my particular meeting had actually been<br>[69:49] scheduled for Saturday. So,<br>[69:51] >> I showed up a day early uh for because I<br>[69:55] didn't understand. So, um, so yeah, that<br>[69:57] kind of thing happens, but, uh, it's a<br>[70:00] much bigger mistake for Joseph.<br>[70:01] >> Too bad Joseph and Mary had to had to<br>[70:03] travel that distance while she was<br>[70:05] pregnant. That's rough.<br>[70:07] >> She's like, why would we have to go to<br>[70:09] our ancestral hometown? I don't know. I<br>[70:12] don't know, [clears throat]<br>[70:14] >> sweetie. I don't know. I just get me a<br>[70:18] donkey.<br>[70:21] >> Do they have those new electric donkeys?<br>[70:24] I need I need an e donkey. [laughter]<br>[70:27] >> Um, next thing.<br>[70:29] >> So, uh, we have no record of an<br>[70:31] empirewide census uh, from anywhere in<br>[70:35] ancient Rome. And they would not have<br>[70:37] conducted a census themselves<br>[70:40] within Herod's own client kingdom. Herod<br>[70:42] was a client king very similar to the<br>[70:44] way that uh, we we have a lot of other<br>[70:47] countries that kind of do our bidding in<br>[70:49] the United States. And we have a long<br>[70:51] history of telling countries to do our<br>[70:53] bidding. Um, [laughter]<br>[70:55] >> we're good at it. What do you want?<br>[70:56] >> Yeah. And uh and something very similar<br>[71:00] went on then. And and basically Rome<br>[71:02] said, "Hey, this is the tribute that you<br>[71:04] owe to us." And we don't care how you<br>[71:07] get it, just pay it. And then Herod<br>[71:09] would go around and say, "Give me my<br>[71:11] money." Uh, and charge taxes to people<br>[71:13] based on the tribute. And obviously<br>[71:15] Herod would also one for me, one for<br>[71:17] them, one for me, one for it would<br>[71:19] charge extra. But but Herod was in<br>[71:22] charge of figuring out how to get the<br>[71:24] money and uh all Rome want wanted, hey,<br>[71:28] we'd like this much money from you. So<br>[71:30] yeah, there's there's no the notion that<br>[71:33] there was an empirewide census that<br>[71:35] included Herod's client kingdom is not<br>[71:38] supported by the data<br>[71:39] >> except for in Tacitus's annals book<br>[71:44] seven chapter 41<br>[71:47] >> a a tribe known as the<br>[71:50] >> say it right<br>[71:52] >> cate<br>[71:55] [laughter]<br>[71:57] >> Did I did I I misspelled that? Yeah,<br>[71:59] it's actually the I should be an L and<br>[72:01] uh the the E should be an I. So, try<br>[72:04] again to say it right.<br>[72:06] >> I can't I don't know what you just said.<br>[72:07] You say it.<br>[72:09] >> C L I T A E.<br>[72:11] >> Clee.<br>[72:12] >> Yeah, something like that. Um [laughter]<br>[72:15] misspelled something.<br>[72:16] >> That's okay. I just I should have I<br>[72:18] looked up other things. I didn't get<br>[72:20] around to looking up what that was.<br>[72:22] Okay. Uh anyway, in Tacitus, the the<br>[72:25] clee uh were required to give an account<br>[72:30] of their revenue and submit to a Roman<br>[72:33] tri submit to a Roman tribute even<br>[72:35] though uh they were subject to a client<br>[72:38] king named Archelaus.<br>[72:40] >> Yes. And this is not the Archelaus that<br>[72:42] took over rule of Judea after Herod<br>[72:44] died. This is Archelaus of Capidoshia.<br>[72:46] Uh this is a different Archelaus. So So<br>[72:49] this is brought up.<br>[72:49] >> It's my preferred Archelaus actually.<br>[72:51] Yeah, he's a better archae. But um<br>[72:53] >> this is the best one.<br>[72:54] >> Yes, the arc archelaus, if you will. Um<br>[72:57] and this is brought up a lot. Um our our<br>[73:00] good friend uh inspiring philosophy<br>[73:03] quoted a a scholar who brought up this<br>[73:05] passage as evidence that uh they would<br>[73:09] have meddled in the affairs of other<br>[73:11] client kingdoms, including imposing<br>[73:13] census, sensei, censuses um upon them.<br>[73:17] And the problem is that's not at all<br>[73:20] what the text says. I'm going to read<br>[73:22] from a translation and then correct some<br>[73:24] of the translation and then explain<br>[73:26] what's [laughter] going on here. At the<br>[73:28] same time, the Clete, a tribe subject to<br>[73:31] the Capidoshian Archelaus, retreated to<br>[73:34] the heights of Mount Taus because they<br>[73:37] were compelled in Roman fashion to<br>[73:40] render an account of the revenue and<br>[73:42] submit to tribute. There they defended<br>[73:45] themselves by means of the nature of the<br>[73:47] country against the king's unwarlike<br>[73:49] troops till Marcus Tbellius, whom<br>[73:52] Vitellius, the governor of Syria, sent<br>[73:55] as his lieutenant with 4,000<br>[73:56] legionnaires and some picked<br>[73:58] auxiliaries, surrounded with his lines<br>[74:00] two hills occupied by the barbarians,<br>[74:02] the lesser of which was named Cadra, the<br>[74:04] other Dvara. It just goes on like that.<br>[74:07] >> I stopped paying attention. I don't know<br>[74:09] what we're<br>[74:09] >> I I did too. Um but in short it does not<br>[74:14] say that Rome imposed a census. It says<br>[74:18] that this tribe that was subject to<br>[74:21] Archelaus<br>[74:24] was compelled in Roman fashion to render<br>[74:27] an account of their revenue. Now here's<br>[74:29] the problem. Uh the it doesn't say in<br>[74:31] Roman fashion. The Latin actually says<br>[74:34] uh according to our mode they were<br>[74:38] subjected to a census.<br>[74:39] >> Okay. Now, here's the thing. If you go<br>[74:42] ask a classist what's going on here,<br>[74:44] they will every last one of them tell<br>[74:46] you, "Oh, this means Archelaus imposed a<br>[74:51] census upon the tribe that was in his<br>[74:54] own kingdom and did it in the Roman<br>[74:57] fashion,<br>[74:58] >> right?"<br>[74:59] >> And it didn't work. They objected. They<br>[75:01] ran off to the hills. And then they were<br>[75:03] giving Archelaus trouble. And Archelaus<br>[75:06] had to go, "Uh, Rome, can you help out<br>[75:09] here a little bit?" And Rome was like,<br>[75:11] "Ah, you again? Okay, send, uh, we're<br>[75:15] going to send Trabellius, Marcus<br>[75:17] Tbellius, with a bunch of legionnaires<br>[75:19] and some auxiliaries to root out the<br>[75:22] rebels that you evidently can't handle<br>[75:24] on your own." So,<br>[75:26] >> you're saying they couldn't find the<br>[75:29] >> I'm just going to say, uh, that's<br>[75:32] delightful. [laughter]<br>[75:35] Look, they were hiding. They were up<br>[75:37] under a cliff. Um,<br>[75:38] >> it's not always easy to find. It's<br>[75:40] [laughter] It's not their fault.<br>[75:44] Oh gosh. It's a good thing my wife<br>[75:46] doesn't listen to podcast. [laughter]<br>[75:47] Um,<br>[75:50] uh, but I just realized that could have<br>[75:53] reflected negatively on me and that was<br>[75:55] not where I was going. I'm just not<br>[75:58] where I was going. I promise you<br>[75:59] [laughter]<br>[76:01] >> not where I was going. Um,<br>[76:04] but that has nothing to do with Rome<br>[76:05] imposing a census on a client kingdom.<br>[76:08] That has to do with a client king<br>[76:10] imposing his own census and trying to do<br>[76:12] it in the Roman fashion. Because when<br>[76:14] Rome imposes a census census, you don't<br>[76:16] say Rome is imposing a census in the<br>[76:19] Roman fashion as [clears throat]<br>[76:22] as those Romans are to do. Yeah.<br>[76:25] >> You just say they imposed a census<br>[76:26] because they of course they're doing it<br>[76:28] in the Roman fashion. But no, this was a<br>[76:30] client king doing it as the Romans did<br>[76:34] >> um like they do on the Discovery<br>[76:36] Channel. And so um it was this has<br>[76:39] nothing to do with that. So yeah, there<br>[76:41] there are apologists who will bring this<br>[76:42] up and it is profoundly misguided.<br>[76:45] >> Yeah. And that brings us to let's get<br>[76:49] this<br>[76:51] we're running long here but that's<br>[76:52] >> now this this could go on forever but<br>[76:54] Luke 2:2 claims that the census took<br>[76:56] place when Corinius I'm going to say<br>[76:58] that name again because I slurred it.<br>[77:00] Quirinius governed in Syria. And that<br>[77:02] would be a reference to the census<br>[77:04] overseen by Quirinius when he was leot<br>[77:07] in Syria starting in 6 CE after Herod<br>[77:11] Archelaus deposed was deposed, excuse<br>[77:13] me, and Rome took over direct rule of<br>[77:16] Judea and needed to know how to tax the<br>[77:18] region.<br>[77:20] >> Yeah. Okay. [laughter]<br>[77:23] So, uh, the objection you've given me,<br>[77:27] uh, involves a word that I I<br>[77:29] >> you just say proy or proteé.<br>[77:32] >> Okay. We're not crushing our pros here.<br>[77:34] >> No. No.<br>[77:36] >> Okay. So, uh, the objection is Luke 2:2<br>[77:39] uses the word proate, which can mean<br>[77:43] earlier or before. So, the passage<br>[77:46] should be translated. This was the<br>[77:48] registration before Quirinius began to<br>[77:52] govern in Syria.<br>[77:55] [laughter]<br>[77:58] >> And uh the problem here is that uh<br>[78:01] protection spelled slightly differently<br>[78:04] when it's used to mean earlier or<br>[78:06] before.<br>[78:08] uh is followed up immediately after by a<br>[78:11] noun or a participle uh or a a phrase<br>[78:15] that is in the genative case and that is<br>[78:19] not what we see in Luke 2:2. So there<br>[78:23] there there are scholars who have been<br>[78:25] like yeah this is while it's not an you<br>[78:28] know utterly impossible reading it is<br>[78:30] not a plausible reading and is clearly<br>[78:32] just apologetic in origin. It is just an<br>[78:35] attempt to sidestep the fact that Luke<br>[78:39] 2:2 would have to have this census and<br>[78:43] Jesus's birth dating to 6 CE, which<br>[78:46] directly contradicts Luke 1, which has<br>[78:50] it occurring<br>[78:52] during the reign of Herod the greater<br>[78:54] very shortly after his death in 4 BCE, a<br>[78:58] full decade before Quirinius took over<br>[79:02] rule. So, uh, yeah, that that objection<br>[79:04] also does not work. It's not the weakest<br>[79:07] of all the objections here, but it's far<br>[79:10] from a plausible objection to the<br>[79:13] recognition that Corinius uh had nothing<br>[79:16] to do with Syria or any census anywhere<br>[79:18] near the reign of Herod the Great.<br>[79:21] All right. Well, there you go. Uh, ap<br>[79:24] sorry apologists. Uh, your sorry<br>[79:27] apologetics don't seem to be cutting it<br>[79:29] this time,<br>[79:31] >> but next round they're going to come<br>[79:33] through with some hardcore stuff. I'm<br>[79:35] sure they will.<br>[79:36] >> You You better You better be getting<br>[79:37] down to fight and wait. So that would So<br>[79:39] because they're uh they're coming for<br>[79:40] you.<br>[79:41] >> Uh friends, thank you so much for tuning<br>[79:43] in. If you would like to get an adfree<br>[79:46] version of this show, possibly get it<br>[79:48] early, you can become one of our patrons<br>[79:51] over on patreon.com. you go over there,<br>[79:54] you give us a little bit of your money<br>[79:55] every month. We appreciate it. It keeps<br>[79:57] our our families fed. And then uh you<br>[80:02] get to be a part of uh making the show<br>[80:04] go and you get access to the to the show<br>[80:07] to the ad free version of the show. You<br>[80:09] get you can get access to the afterparty<br>[80:12] that we do every week. Uh bonus content<br>[80:15] where you can ask us questions. It's the<br>[80:17] best way to actually get us to respond<br>[80:19] to you if you want a response from us.<br>[80:23] Uh it may not be timely, but we will<br>[80:25] respond to you. Uh so head on over to<br>[80:28] patreon.com/dataoverdogma<br>[80:31] to do that. We we always appreciate our<br>[80:34] patrons the most. But speaking of<br>[80:36] appreciating people, uh we appreciate<br>[80:39] Roger. Thanks so much to Roger Gaudy for<br>[80:41] editing the show and we will talk to you<br>[80:43] all again next week. Bye everybody.<br>[80:50] Data Overdogma is a member of the<br>[80:52] Airwave Media Network. It is a<br>[80:54] production of Data Overdogma Media LLC.<br>[80:56] Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. The<br>[80:59] French Revolution set Europe ablaze. It<br>[81:02] was an age of enlightenment and<br>[81:04] progress, but also of tyranny and<br>[81:06] oppression. It was an age of glory and<br>[81:08] an age of tragedy. One man stood above<br>[81:11] it all. This was the age of Napoleon.<br>[81:14] I'm Everett Rummage, host of the Age of<br>[81:16] Napoleon podcast. Join me as I examine<br>[81:19] the life and times of one of the most<br>[81:21] fascinating and enigmatic characters in<br>[81:23] modern history. Look for the age of<br>[81:26] Napoleon wherever you find your<br>[81:27] podcasts. <!-- deep-read:sections end -->