Chapter Eleven THE NAT IVITY THE STORY AS IS The story of the nativity in the New Testament appears in only two of the four gospels: Matthew and Luke. The gospel of Matthew opens with the genealogy of Jesus. It traces his ancestry from his fathe r Joseph throug h David to !raham. The main point of the genea logy is to show that Jesus was a descendent of "ing David. # This was supposed to have !een a fulfillment of an $ld Testament passage which prophesi%ed that the messiah will !e descended from that famed Jewish king of anti&uity: II 'amuel (:#)*#+ ,hen your days -i.e. Davids/ are fulfilled0 and you shall sleep with your fathers0 I will set up your seed after you0 who shall proceed out of your !owels0 and I will esta!lish his kingdom. 1e shall !uild a house for my name0 and I will esta!lish the throne of his kingdom forever . fter the genealogy0 the focus is shifted to Mary0 a woman pledged to !e married to Jos eph. 2ef ore they had had any se3ual rela tions0 Jos eph foun d out Mar y was pregnant0 or as the gospel puts it 4with child through the 1oly 'pirit5 6Matthew #:#78. 1e wanted to terminate the engagement !ut had a dream that night which made him change his mind . In that dream0 an angel appeare d to him0 informing him of Mary s miracul ous concep tion. This vir ginal conc eption was in fulfi llment of anothe r $ld Te stament proph ecy 6Isaia h (:#98. onvin ced that his dream was a message from ;od0 Joseph married the pregnant girl and when the child was !orn0 named him Jesus. Matthew mentioned that Jesus was !orn in 2ethlehem in Judea. The whole narrative up to now gives no hint that Joseph and Mary were from anywhere else e3cept 2ethlehem. f te r Jesus was !orn0 4wis e me n fr om the east 5 6Mat thew ): )8 ca me to Jerusa lem to look for the new!orn king of the Jews. They ment ioned that the y had seen a star in the east that led them to Judea. Their en&uiries reached the ears of "ing 1erod the ;re at . 1e was worr ied a!out this possi!le threat to his throne and summoned the chief priests and the teachers of the law to en&uire from them where the messia h will !e !orn. They told him 2ethlehe m was the ordained pla ced for it was prophe sied in the $ld Te stament 6Mic ah <:)8. 1erod then tol d the wise men to look for the new!orn and to inform him of the !a!ys wherea!outs on the prete3t that he too would wan t the worship the new 4kin g of the Jews5. 'o the wise men went to 2ethlehem where they found the !a!y Jesu s. onsistent with his story 0 the wise men found Jesus in Josephs and Marys house6Matthew ):##8. =pon seeing the !a!y the wise men gave him gifts of gold0 incense and myrrh ) and worshipped him. They then went !ack to their own country !y another route0 having !eing warned !y an angel in a dream not to go !ack to 1erod. # >enton0 Saint Matthew: p+? ) It is pro!a!ly from these threepresents that tradition counted threewise men. <+
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
The story of the nativity in the New Testament appears in only two of the four
gospels: Matthew and Luke.
The gospel of Matthew opens with the genealogy of Jesus. It traces his ancestry
from his father Joseph through David to !raham. The main point of the genealogy
is to show that Jesus was a descendent of "ing David.# This was supposed to have
!een a fulfillment of an $ld Testament passage which prophesi%ed that the messiah
will !e descended from that famed Jewish king of anti&uity:
II 'amuel (:#)*#+
,hen your days -i.e. Davids/ are fulfilled0 and you shall sleep with your fathers0 I
will set up your seed after you0 who shall proceed out of your !owels0 and I will
esta!lish his kingdom. 1e shall !uild a house for my name0 and I will esta!lish the
throne of his kingdom forever.
fter the genealogy0 the focus is shifted to Mary0 a woman pledged to !e married to
Joseph. 2efore they had had any se3ual relations0 Joseph found out Mary was
pregnant0 or as the gospel puts it 4with child through the 1oly 'pirit5 6Matthew #:#78.
1e wanted to terminate the engagement !ut had a dream that night which made himchange his mind. In that dream0 an angel appeared to him0 informing him of Marys
miraculous conception. This virginal conception was in fulfillment of another $ld
Testament prophecy 6Isaiah (:#98. onvinced that his dream was a message from
;od0 Joseph married the pregnant girl and when the child was !orn0 named him Jesus.
Matthew mentioned that Jesus was !orn in 2ethlehem in Judea. The whole narrative
up to now gives no hint that Joseph and Mary were from anywhere else e3cept
2ethlehem.
fter Jesus was !orn0 4wise men from the east5 6Matthew ):)8 came to
Jerusalem to look for the new!orn king of the Jews. They mentioned that they had
seen a star in the east that led them to Judea. Their en&uiries reached the ears of "ing
1erod the ;reat. 1e was worried a!out this possi!le threat to his throne and
summoned the chief priests and the teachers of the law to en&uire from them where
the messiah will !e !orn. They told him 2ethlehem was the ordained placed for it
was prophesied in the $ld Testament 6Micah <:)8. 1erod then told the wise men to
look for the new!orn and to inform him of the !a!ys wherea!outs on the prete3t that
he too would want the worship the new 4king of the Jews5. 'o the wise men went to
2ethlehem where they found the !a!y Jesus. onsistent with his story0 the wise men
found Jesus in Josephs and Marys house 6Matthew ):##8. =pon seeing the !a!y the
wise men gave him gifts of gold0 incense and myrrh ) and worshipped him. They then
went !ack to their own country !y another route0 having !eing warned !y an angel in
a dream not to go !ack to 1erod.
# >enton0 Saint Matthew: p+?)
It is pro!a!ly from these three presents that tradition counted three wise men.
Now an angel appeared to Joseph0 again in a dream0 telling him to take his
family to @gypt0 which he did. This was done to save the !a!y from the murderous
schemes of 1erod. >or 1erod0 reali%ing that the wise men had outwitted him0 had
given orders to slaughter all the !a!y !oys less than two years of age in and around
2ethlehem. fter 1erod died0 Joseph took his family from @gypt !ack to Judea.
1owever0 when he heard that rchelaus was reigning in his fathers stead0 he went to
;alilee instead.
Matthew now &uoted two passages from the $ld Testament to show that0 here
too0 what happened was in fulfillment of the scriptures. 1e &uoted from 1osea ##:#
for the calling of Joseph0 Mary and !a!y Jesus from @gypt and from Jeremiah +#:<
for the prophecy of the slaughter of the !a!ies !y 1erod. The nativity story in
Matthew ends with the author telling us that Joseph and Mary settled down in the
town of Na%areth in ;alilee.
Lukes story of the nativity narrates two parallel !irth stories: one of Jesus and
one of John the 2aptist. The account kicks off with the annunciation of the !irth of John the 2aptist to Aechariah0 his father*to*!e. ,hen @li%a!eth0 Aechariahs wife0
was si3 months pregnant0 the angel ;a!riel appeared to a virgin in Na%areth named
Mary. The angel announced to her that she was to !e the mother of Jesus0 4the son of
the most high.5 6Luke #:+)8. Mary0 seeing that she was a virgin0 asked how this was
to !e. The angel e3plained that she will !e conceived !y 4the power of the most
high.5 Mary then ac&uiesced !y saying0 4I am the servant of the Lord0 may it !e to
me as you have said.5
Mary0 impregnated !y the 1oly 'pirit0 then visited her relative @li%a!eth0 who
was herself pregnant. It was during this visit that she sang her famous hymn0 TheMagnificat. 'he stayed at her cousins place for three months. fter Mary left0
@li%a!eth gave !irth to John. Thus according to Luke0 Jesus was the second cousin of
John the 2aptist.
,hereas Matthew had Joseph and Mary already living in 2ethlehem when she
!ecame pregnant0 in Luke0 !oth Joseph and Mary were natives of Na%areth. The
reason why they had to go to 2ethlehem0 according to Luke was due to the Boman
census under Cuirinius:
Luke ):#*)
Now it happened in those days0 that a decree went out from aesar ugustus that
all the world should !e enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Cuirinius
was governor of 'yria
ccording to Luke this census re&uired everyone to register not in their present
hometown !ut in the hometown of their ancestor. nd since Joseph0 so says Luke0
was descended from David0 he had to go !ack to 2ethlehem0 the town of David0 to !e
registered. nd so off he went0 taking his heavily pregnant wife with him. ,hen
they reached 2ethlehem Mary started having her contractions. Not !eing a!le to find
any place in the inn0 Mary pro!a!ly gave !irth to Jesus in a sta!le0 for the gospelmakes reference to Jesus !eing put in a manger 6Luke ):(80 which is a container used
for feeding animals.
That night an angel appeared to some shepherds who were keeping watch over
their flocks. 1e announced the news of Jesus !irth to them. $n hearing this0 they
hurried to the place where Jesus was !orn. fter seeing the !a!y0 they went a!out
telling people a!out their e3perience.
Luke then descri!ed the customary Jewish rituals that Jesus went through: he
was circumcised on the Eth day0 and presented to the Temple in Jerusalem on the 9Fth
day. fter all this0 Joseph0 Mary and !a!y Jesus left Judea and went !ack to Na%areth.
2oth the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke share some things in common for
sure: the !irth in 2ethlehem0 the virginal conception and !irth0 the names of Jesus
parents 6Mary and Joseph8 and the eventual move to the town of Na%areth. 1owever0
even in the a!ove cursory presentation of the two nativities one can sense the
differences !etween them. In Matthew0 we are presented with the wise men0 the 'tar
of 2ethlehem and 1erods slaughter of the innocents. In Luke we are presented with
the census of Cuirinius0 the !irth in the sta!le0 the visitation of the shepherds and the
customary Jewish ceremony. The traditional hristian view is that the two
evangelists were selectively descri!ing separate events that happened during the
nativity. skeptic may well ask: were they telling different aspects within the samehistorical event or were they relying on separate0 mutually contradictory0 traditions on
Jesus !irthG nd are the individual stories or episodes historical or are they Hust
mythsG It is with these &uestions that we concern ourselves for the rest of this
chapter.
THE GENEALOGIES
s was mentioned earlier0 Matthew started his gospel !y giving the genealogy of
Jesus 6Matthew #:#*#(8 from Jesus to !raham. Luke also gave a genealogy of Jesus0tracing it all the way to dam. 6Luke +:)+*+E8. 2oth these genealogies trace Jesus
ancestry from Josephs side. 2y comparing the two genealogies0 an o!vious difficulty
arises: they are not the same The names given in Luke from Joseph to David do not
corro!orate with that given in Matthew. In fact0 the genealogies disagree even on the
name of Josephs father:
Matthew #:#?Jaco! !ecame the father of Joseph0 the hus!and of Mary0 from whom was
!orn Jesus0 who is called hrist.
Luke +:)+Jesus himself0 when he !egan to teach0 was a!out thirty years old0 !eingthe son 6as was supposed8 of Joseph0 the son of 1eli.
'o according to Matthew0 Josephs father was Jaco! !ut according to Luke he was
1eli The discrepancies do not stop here. 'ince the messiah !eing a descendent of
David is the reason why there is a need for these genealogies in the first place0 we
find that the two gospels cant even agree as to which of Davids sons Jesus was
descended from. Matthew says he is descended through Davids son and successor0'olomon. Luke contradicts this !y noting that he was descended through another son0
The first e3planation is that the two lists do give the genealogy from Josephs side !ut
one lists the legal heritage while the other gives the natural or biological descent.
This0 they say0 is due to the Jewish religious custom of the levirate 6Deuteronomy
)<:<*#F8. The levirate decrees that if a man died without leaving any offspring0 it is
the duty of the deceased mans !rother to impregnate his !rothers wife to give the
former offspring to perpetuate the family line. In this system0 the living !rother is
biologically !ut the dead !rother is legally the father of the !a!y. In other words0 the
rights and o!ligations of the new!orn are with respect to the deceased legal parent.
=sing this law the ancient apologists claimed that one line of the genealogy gives the
actual legal father0 the other gives the natural father 6from the levirate8. The difficulty
with this e3planation is o!vious0 we are to suppose that the levirate affected all the
generations e3cept two 6'chealtiel and Aeru!!a!el8 from David to Jesus. s harles
;uigne!ert 6#E?(*#7+780 who was Krofessor of 1istory of hristianity in the
'or!onne0 concluded0 such an e3planation is clearly 4a!surd.5(
nother apologetic attempt comes from the third century hristian writer Juliusfricanus 6c#?F*c)9F8. ccording to fricanus0 Jaco! 6Josephs father as given in
Matthew8 and 1eli 6Josephs father as given in Luke8 were !rothers. ,hen 1eli died
childless0 Jaco! impregnated his sister*in*law0 and presto0 !oth 1eli and Jaco! are
Josephs fathers 1eli !eing the legal father while Jaco! the !iological father via the
levirate. The o!vious &uestion then is: why do these two !rothers have different
fathersG 1elis father is Matthat and Jaco!s father is Matthan. fricanus solution
here is typical apologetic nonsense: he claimed that Jaco! and 1eli were half
!rothersE They shared the same mother who after the death of her first hus!and0
Matthan0 remarried this time to Matthat The e3planation is rather strange and soundsunreal. Did fricanus supply any proof of thisG No0 !ut evidence to the early
hristians is of no conse&uence. s fricanus himself wrote:
This may or may not !e the truth of the matter !ut in my opinion and that of every
fair minded person no one else could give a clearer e3position0 and we must content
ourselves with it even if it is unconfirmed0 as we are not in a position to suggest a
!etter or truer one. n any case the gospel record is true.7
Thus was how the inconsistency was reconciled in ancient times with convoluted
e3planations !ased on hypothetical levirate and second marriages. This e3*planation
was eventually a!andoned !y the hristian apologists.
A+OLOGETIC ATTEM+T ,!:
L.E%S GENEALOGY IS TRACE/ THROGH MARY%S ANCESTRY
round the end of #<th century nnius of iter!o suggested another alternative
e3planation to this discrepancy. This 4e3planation5 maintains that the genealogy in
( ;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p##+E ctually fricanus claimed was that Matthan and Melchi were half !rothers. 1is
Lukan genealogy pro!a!ly lacked the names Matthat and Levi. -see 'kausaune
1valvik0 Jewish Believers in Jesus: p+<<*+<?/7 @use!ius0 !istory of the "hurch: #:(
'o all the generations from !raham to David are fourteen generations from
David to the e3ile to 2a!ylon fourteen generations and from the carrying away to
2a!ylon to the hrist0 fourteen generations.
>rom David to the 4e3ile5 ends with Jeconiah. The numerical significance perhaps
lies in Matthew trying to show that every fourteen generations something spectacular happens: for fourteen generations after !raham was David and fourteen generations
after that was the e3ile and so fourteen generations after the e3ile the messiah was
!orn. There is pro!a!ly something sym!olic in the num!er #9 and it could !e that #9
is ( 3 )0 and ( is a num!er that appears very often in Matthew. #+ ll this sounds
impressive. To help in our analysis0 Ta!le ##:) !elow gives the names in Matthews
,hether Matthew meant 4generations5 in the sense of counting the num!er of
names or whether it is in terms of 4!egats5 6i.e. 4 !egats 2 who !egats 5 has three
names !ut two !egats8 his scheme doesnt really work. >or in terms of names we dohave fourteen from !raham to David and from the e3ile 6Jechoniah8 to Jesus !ut we
have fifteen names from David to the e3ile 6Jechoniah8. It does not help if we take
4generations5 to mean 4!egats5 Q for now we have only thirteen generations for
!raham to David and from the e3ile to Jesus. Note also that this pro!lem is not
solved !y removing names which are counted twice 6David and Jechoniah80 for if
these are remove David from the second column and Jechoniah from the third column
we have #9*#9*#+. In essence we have 9# names when we need 9). ,hichever way
>urthermore0 Matthew has !een less than honest in making the genealogy fit his
numerological scheme. In the second list of fourteen generations 6from David to
Jeconiah8 we have the seemingly innocent verse:
Matthew #:E
Joram !ecame the father of =%%iah.
These are the seventh and eighth name in the second column of ta!le ##.) a!ove.
Matthew had skipped three generations from Joram to =%iah to keep his nicely
!alanced numerology. >or we know from the $ld Testament that Joram was actually
the great great grandfather of =%%iah:
II "ings E:)9 6II hronicles )):#8
Jora% slept with his fathers0 and was !uried with his fathers in the city of David
and *ha)iah his son reigned in his place.II "ings ##:) 6II hronicles )):##8
... Joash the son of *ha)iah...
II "ings #9:# 6II hronicles )<:#8
... *%a)iah the son of Joash
II hronicles )?:# 6II "ings #<:#8
ll the people of Judah took ())iah0 who was si3teen years old0 and %ade hi%
+ing in the roo% of his father *%a)iah
'o the actual genealogical relationship !etween Joram and =%%iah is Joram*hai%ah*Joash*ma%iah*=%%aih. Matthew has left out three generations 6ha%iah0 Joash and
ma%iah8 to make the genealogy conform to his numerology.
There is another mistake in Matthews list:
Matthew #:##
Josiah !ecame the father of Jechoniah and his !rothers0 at the time of the e3ile to
2a!ylon.
Jeconiah is Hust another form of the name Jehoiachin and we know from the $ldTestament that Josiah was Jeconiahs grandfather :
II "ings )+:+9 6II hronicles +?:98
Kharaoh Necoh made @liakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his
There is however another name that did not appear in any e3tant te3t known to
us0 i.e. neither in the 1e!rew 2i!le nor in the ;reek 'eptuagint. That name appears in
Luke +:)(0 Bhesa
Luke +:)(
the son of Joanan0 the son of .hesa0 the son of Zerubbabel
Bhesa0 in the a!ove passage is the father of Joanan and the son of Aeru!!a!el. This
makes Joanan the grandson of Aeru!!a!el. Now Joanan is Hust another form of the
name 1ananiah and we know from the $ld Testament that he was the son of
Aeru!!a!el.
I hronicles +:#7
The sons of Zerubbabel : Meshullam0 and !ananiah /0Joanan1...
There is no such person as Bhesa and Luke had simply inserted another generation to
the list.
It remains an open &uestion whether Lukes mistakes in inserting the names of
Bhesa and ainan were accidental or purposeful. It should !e noted that the num!er
of generations from ;od to Jesus in Lukes list is (( and we know that the messianic
num!er is (. 'o perhaps Luke0 like Matthew0 da!!led in numerology.
Matthew traces Jesus lineage through the Davidic kings0 so we can compare his
list with those from the !ooks of "ings. Luke on the other hand has a list0 with the
e3ception of Nathan 6son of David80 Aeru!!a!el0 'healtiel and Joseph0 consisting of totally unknown names. ,e do not know where Luke got these names from. It should
also !e mentioned that even with known names we have discrepancies !etween the
two lists. In Matthew the father of 'healtiel was given as Jeconiah -Jehoaichin/0 in
Luke the father is given as Neri.#(
Let us conclude what we have found out a!out the genealogies. 'ome of the
names in the genealogies are taken out from the $ld Testament. @ven from this
known source0 we find that !oth Matthew and Luke used the source rather freely to fit
it into their theological schemes. ,here the source in unknown we find they
contradict one another. The conclusion is o!vious: !oth the genealogies are works of
fiction.
THE VIRGIN 0IRTH
2oth Matthew and Luke stated that Jesus conception was not a commonplace one. In
these gospels Mary was a virgin who !ecame pregnant0 not through se3ual
intercourse0 !ut through the 4power of the 1oly 'pirit5 6Matthew #:#E Luke #:+9*
young girl of marriagea!le age0 as for instance0 when it is applied to Be!ecca !efore
her marriage to Isaac 6;enesis )9:9+80 it is also used to mean a slave woman and
sometimes even for women in a harem.
If the author of Isaiah wanted to make clear the prophecy was meant for a virgin
!irth0 he would not have used the word al%ah for all the am!iguity that it entails. 1e
would have chosen the 1e!rew word that does e3plicitly mean a virgin: bethulah.
This word would have !een the 1e!rew e&uivalent for the ;reek parthenos. The
;reek e&uivalent for al%ah should actually !e neanis0 which means young woman.
Matthews assertion of the virgin !irth !eing prophesied in the scripture is
therefore !ased on a %istranslation of the 1e!rew word for a young woman. The
virgin !irth is nowhere prophesied in the original 1e!rew. #7
In fact0 if we look at the passage in Isaiah within its entire conte3t0 it looks even
more unlikely to !e any sort of a messianic prophecy. It arose in a conversation
!etween the prophet Isaiah and ha%0 the "ing of Judah. It was a time of national
danger and the king feared a new attack from the alliance of 'yria and Israel. Thetwo com!ined force had Hust failed to take Jerusalem 6Isaiah (:#8. Isaiah wanted to
assure ha% that ;od is on Judahs side. >rom this point on let us follow the !i!lical
narrative:
Isaiah (:#F*#(
Pahweh spoke again to ha%0 saying0 4sk a sign of Pahweh your ;od ask it
either in the depth0 or in the height a!ove.5 2ut ha% said0 4I will not ask0 neither
will I tempt Pahweh.5 1e said0 4Listen now0 house of David: Is it not enough for
you to try the patience of men0 that you will try the patience of my ;od alsoG
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. 2ehold0 the al%ah will conceive0
and !ear a son0 and shall call his name Immanuel. 1e shall eat !utter and honey
when he knows to refuse the evil0 and choose the good. 3or before the child +nows
to refuse the evil# and choose the good# the land whose two +ings you abhor shall
be forsa+en. Pahweh will !ring on you0 on your people0 and on your fathers house0
days that have not come0 from the day that @phraim departed from Judah even the
king of ssyria.
Trying to fit Jesus into the passage a!ove is impossi!le. ,hat does the prophet mean
when he said that the savior will eat !utter and honeyG $r that there was a time inJesus life when he does a not know how to refuse the evil and choose the goodG Pet
the prophecy a!ove is o!viously meant to !e taken as a whole.
The whole passage suggests that the prophecy had a more immediate meaning. It
is enough to note the section I have italici%ed a!ove0 which connects the child to !e
!orn with the immediate events 6i.e. the defeat of the two kings8. The prophecy was
o!viously meant !y Isaiah to reassure ha% that the kings of 'yria and Israel will soon
!e defeated or rendered powerless. In modern terms the prophecy will go something
like this:
If a woman gets married today and conceives a child0 from now until his !irth -i.e.
around nine months/ conditions will !e so much improved -!utter and honey/ that
he will !e a!le to !e given a name that signifies a good omen0 %%anuel or 4;od iswith us5. nd !y the time the child !egins to understand and distinguish !etween
good and !ad -around two to three years/ the two enemies of "ing ha% will !e
van&uished !y the king of ssyria.
The emphasis of the prophecy of Isaiah was not on the %ode of conception of the
child !ut on the speediness in which king ha%s enemies will !e defeated. The child
was used as a chronological !enchmark0 so to speak0 for the Judean king to
confidently estimate the timing of the approaching events.
In fact the child !eing prophesied was pro!a!ly
)F
the one referred to in the ne3tchapter:
Isaiah E:+*9
nd I went to the prophetess0 and she conceived and !ore a son. Then the Lord
said to me0 4all his name Mahershalalhash!a% for !efore the child knows how to
cry SMy father or SMy mother0 the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of 'amaria
will !e carried away !efore the king of ssyria.
Immanuel was o!viously a sym!olic name0 after all the hristians were never
!othered that Jesus was not called !y that name. 2ut the name of the child a!oveMahershalalhash!a%0 is significant here0 for it is another sym!olic name which means
4haste*spoil0 speed*!ooty5 it connotes the calamity which was to !efall the kings of
Israel and 'yria0 is the e,act opposite of Immanuel0 which connotes the converse
fortune for Judah. nd !efore the child can utter 4mama5 and 4papa50 ha%s
enemies will !e defeated: e3actly what was predicted in Isaiah (:#F*#(.
It is therefore o!vious that the passage from Isaiah viewed in its full conte3t has
nothing to do with Jesus or any messianic prophecy. $nly !y taking the passage out
of conte3t and !y the mistranslation of the 1e!rew word almah could it !e finally
twisted to refer to Jesus. In short0 there was no $ld Testament prophesy of the virgin !irth.)#
The &uestion arises: did Matthew invent the story of the virgin !irth !ased on
the mistranslation of Isaiah or did he or some other early hristian read into Isaiah a
)F Baymond 2rown in his !ook The Birth of the Messiah 6Dou!leday0 #77+8 disagreed
that the prophets wife is the almah !eing referred to in Isaiah (:#9. 1owever the
atholic theologian admitted that the prophecy is essentially one that uses the upcoming
!irth of a !a!y as a 4chronological !enchmark5 for the defeat of ha%s enemies. 6see
The Birth of Messiah0 p#9(*#9E821 simov0 -uide to the Bible: p<+#*<++
tradition that was already circulating among the !elievers at that time Matthew was
written around the end of the first century @G The former is unlikely as Luke seems
to have written a!out the virgin !irth independently of Matthew. 1ence it is more
likely that Matthew was writing down 6and perhaps em!ellishing it with additional
details from his own creative mind8 what was community tradition regarding Jesus
circulating among the !elievers at that time. 4arthenogenesis or virgin !irth is0 among human !eings0 to say the least0 an
e3tremely unlikely occurrence. This is not to reHect the idea out of hand !ut simply to
point out that anyone making such a claim is making an e3traordinary assertion. The
!urden of proof lies s&uarely with the party that asserts that such an event had
occurred in history. nd e,traordinary clai%s de%and e,traordinary proof . ,e have
seen that the 2i!le can contain error0 inconsistencies and downright falsehoods0 it is
therefore not enough to assert that Hust !ecause it is in the 2i!le it must !e true.
Let us now get !ack to the virgin !irth. Now most of the people who knew Jesus
during his ministry knew him as an adult0 so they are pretty useless as witnesses inthis case. >rom the people who should have known him !efore his ministry0 we get a
reaction that positively suggests that the miracle of parthenogenesis never happened.
>or e3ample0 as Mark reveals0 when Jesus started preaching0 his family0 including his
mother0 went to call him !ack !ecause they thought he was 4out of his mind5 6Mark
+:)#8. Now why on earth would Mary0 of all people0 think her son 4out of his mind5
when he started preaching when she had !een a willing and knowing party to the first
miracle in the messiahs lifeG ,hat a!out the people whom Jesus grew up withG They
were the ne3t !est candidates to have knowledge a!out his special !irth. ,hat did
they do when he started preachingG ccording to Mark they reHected his teachings6Mark ?:#*?8.
In fact the earliest sources on Jesus are silent on the issue of the virgin !irth we
see nothing in Kauls letters 6D<#*?98 and Marks gospel 6cD(F8 a!out Jesus
miraculous conception. This silence is actually strong testimony against the
historicity of the virgin !irth. >or !oth Mark and Kaul were convinced !elievers and
had it occurred or had they heard a!out it0 they would surely have written something
a!out it. In fact a natural reading 6i.e. without any theological preconception8 of
Kauls letter to the ;alatians showed that the 4apostle to the gentiles5 !elieved Jesus
came into the world like everyone else:
;alatians 9:9
2ut when the fullness of the time came0 ;od sent out his 'on0 !orn to a woman0
!orn under the law.
The message conveyed !y Kaul here is that Jesus was a normal Jewish child called !y
;od.))
$ur ne3t early source is from the Jewish hristians0 the Na%arenes or @!ionites.
The Jewish hristians never accepted the story of the virgin !irth. ,e know this
through references of their !eliefs !y the early church fathers such as Justin Martyr0Jerome0 Irenaeus and $rigen.)+ Now we know from how myths developed that stories
22 adou30 The Life of Jesus: p)(
;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p##7)+ Macco!y0 .evolution n Judea: p)E?
tend to get more fantastic upon retelling not the other way round. Thus that the
Jewish hristians dis!elief in the virgin !irth is strong evidence that they were
adhering to an older0 unem!ellished tradition. >urthermore we have strong reasons to
!elieve that the Na%arenes or @!ionites were the theological descendents of James0 the
!rother of Jesus. It is this group of hristians0 more than any other group0 that could
have claimed to !e direct eyewitnesses to the events in Jesus life. )9
Thus from a critical standpoint the virgin !irth is not history !ut myth.
THE EVOLTION O8 THE CONCE+T O8 VIRGIN 0IRTH
It is also important to note that apart from the fact that the virgin !irth was not
prophesied in the $ld Testament0 !ut as an ase,ual form of reproduction0 it is also an
idea that is foreign Jewish theology. There are si3 times in the $ld Testament where
;od is descri!ed as miraculously helping in the conception of a child !ut at no time
does it mean the a!sence of se3ual intercourse. In ;enesis #(:#<*)# )#:#*+ ;odhelped the 7F year old 'arah0 long past child !earing age0 conceive Q giving !irth to
Isaac. 2ut se3ual relations !etween 'arah and !raham are clearly assumed. In
;enesis )7:+F*+)0 Leah was cured of her infertility !y ;od0 and again here the
implication is that she had se3ual relations with her hus!and Jaco!. 'imilarly
Be!ecca0 Bachel and 1annah !ecame pregnant !ecause ;od answered their prayers
6;enesis )<:)#0 +F:))0 I 'amuel #:#F*##0 #7*)F8. In the story of 'amson 6Judges #+80
;ods intervention in his !irth also assumes normal intercourse !etween the hus!and
and wife.)<
1owever when we look over at the side of the ;entiles0 the world wherehristianity was to flourish0 we see something completely different. Miraculous
virgin !irth and divine incarnation are common place ideas. >or e3ample in the ;reek
myth0 Kerseus was !orn of the virgin Danae. Danae was conceived !y the ;od Aeus
who took the form of a shower of gold.)?
nd in almost all the popular mystery religions )(0 the !eliefs of the uneducated
masses0 the divine personalities are !orn of virgins. >or e3ample0 Mithra0 a derivative
of the Kersian sun*worship0 whose cult rivaled hristianity during the first few
centuries of its e3istence0 was conceived when ;od himself0 in the form of light0
entered a virgin. Khoenecian mythology had donis !eing !orn of the virgin Myrrh.Karthenogenesis was also the e3planation for the !irth of the Khyrgian deity0 ttis
from his mother y!ele.)E
The popular culture also ascri!ed to many famous men miraculous0 divine and0
sometimes0 even virgin !irth. Thus the emperor ugustus0 the reigning sovereign
during the time of Jesus0 was reputedly miraculously !egotten when a snake
descended upon his mother in the temple of pollo. 'o too0 Bomulus0 the legendary
)9 'ee my we!site http:OOwww.geocities.comOpaulnto!inOpaulorigin.html for more
information on the development of early hristianity.)< Miller0 Born Divine: p)+<*)+?)? raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p++*+9)(
The pagan religions were referred to as mystery religions !ecause they took the form
of mysteries which were only revealed to the initiated.)E >reke ;andy0 The Jesus Mysteries: p+(
Mark ?:+ 6Matthew #+:<<8 -also Mark +:+#*+) 6Matthew #):9?*<F8/
Isnt this the carpenter0 the son of Mary0 and !rother of James0 Joses0 Judah0 and
'imonG rent his sisters here with usG5
@ven John0 the most mystical of all the gospels0 does not deny the fact that Jesus was
not the only child:
John ):#) -also John (:+/
fter this0 he went down to apernaum0 he0 and his mother0 his !rothers0 and his
disciples and they stayed there a few days.
Kauls epistles also clearly show Jesus had !rothers:
;alatians #:#E*#7
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Keter0 and stayed with him
fifteen days. 2ut of the other apostles I saw no one0 e3cept James0 the Lords
!rother.
I orinthians 7:<
1ave we no right to take along a wife who is a !eliever0 even as the rest of the
apostles0 and the !rothers of the Lord0 and ephasG
Boman atholic theologians0 of course0 have !een fighting this o!vious and natural
interpretation of the gospel passages with tortuous and ad hoc e3planations that will
convince only those who already want to !elieve. Let us look at some of their
apologetic attempts.
In e3plaining Matthew #:)9*)<0 the atholic theologian Baymond @. 2rown in
his !ook The Birth of the Messiah 6Dou!leday #77+8 stated that the ;reek usage of
4until5 6;reek: heos hou8 4often has no implication at all a!out what happened after
the limit of 4until5 was reached.5 and that 4The immediate conte3t favors a lack of
future implication here0 for Matthew is concerned only with stressing Marys virginity
!efore the childs !irth5+< -italics added/.
It is important to note this is merely a 4possi!ility5 defense Q something we have
looked at in chapter ( of this !ook. 4$ften5 does not imply 4always5 or even 4more
often than not5. In other words0 what he omits to say is that e&ually often0 heos houdoes imply a future event. s for the conte3t of Matthew0 this is again a theological
sleight of hand. If Matthew is concerned only in stressing Marys virginity !efore the
!irth of Jesus0 this means that Matthew0 at !est0 says nothing a!out Marys perpetual
virginity. >urthermore since 4until5 in ;reek or @nglish does sometimes imply a
future event after that 4until50 had Matthew !elieved in the perpetual virginity of
Mary0 he would certainly have chosen to phrase the passage differently in order to
avoid the misinterpretation that Mary ceased !eing virgin after the !irth of Jesus.+?
1is defense of Luke ):?*( is e&ually ad hoc. The pro!lem here is that there is a
nice ;reek word that Luke could have used if he wanted to show that Jesus wasMarys only child: %onogenes. That he used instead prototo+os 6first !orn8 re&uires
some apologetic shuffling. iting a ;reek tom!stone dating to < 2@ which states
+< 2rown0 Birth of the Messiah: p#+)+? Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: p(#
continued virginity0 was told to 4try it herself5. 'he did and found her offending hand
withered as a result
Krotoevangelium #9:#<*))
nd the midwife said to her0 4'alome0 'alome0 I will tell you a most surprising
thing which I saw. virgin has given !irth0 which is a thing contrary to nature.5 Towhich 'alome replied0 4s the Lord my ;od lives0 unless I receive particular proof
of this matter0 I will not !elieve that a virgin has given !irth.5 Then 'alome went in
and the midwife said0 4Mary0 show yourself0 for a great controversy is risen
concerning you.5 nd 'alome received satisfaction. 2ut her hand was withered and
she groaned !itterly.
The 4rotoevangeliu% also claimed James as its author and esta!lished him as the
elder !rother of Jesus. In the appendi3 to the work we read this:
Krotoevangelium0 ppendi3
I0 James0 wrote this history in Jerusalem and when the distur!ance was I retired
into the desert place0 until the death of 1erod.
$rigen 6c#E<*)<980 whose piety e3tended to him castrating himself after reflecting on
Matthew #7:#)0 was an early supporter of the @piphanian view. iting !oth the
Krotoevangelium 6which $rigen referred to as 4The 2ook of James58 and a now lost
portion of The -ospel of 4eter 0 $rigen mentioned this in his "o%%entary on
Matthew:
8n Matthew: #F:#(
2ut some say0 !asing it on a tradition in the ;ospel according to Keter0 as it is
entitled0 or The 2ook of James0 that the !rethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph !y a
former wife0 whom he married !efore Mary. Now those who say so wish to
preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end ... nd I think it in harmony with
reason that Jesus was the first*fruit among men of the purity which consists in
chastity0 and Mary among women for it were not pious to ascri!e to any other than
to her the first*fruit of virginity.
nother prominent supporter of the @piphanian view was0 of course0 @piphanius6c+#<*9F+8 himself. In his 4anarion0 a 4medicine chest5 for use against heresies0
@phiphanius mentioned that Josephs first wife died after !earing him si3 children0
with James !eing the eldest. 1e also added that Joseph was EF years old when he was
!etrothed to Mary !y then0 presuma!ly0 he was too old to have se3. 6Kanarion (E:(:#*
(E:E:)8
It seems hardly necessary to refute such a charming fantasy 1owever for
completeness sake we need to look at why almost everyone looks at this view with
skepticism.
• The earliest evidence for this came from the mid second century 4rotoevangeliu%. The Krotoevangelium was authored !y someone who
o!viously had no knowledge of Kalestinian geography and Jewish customs.
Its narratives are a conflation of the canonical works of Matthew and Luke.
It !ears0 according to John Kainter0 4deep marks of legendary
development5. Thus the work is a derivative work of piety written !y
someone who was neither an eyewitness nor someone who had any access
to relia!le tradition.
• s $rigens statement a!ove makes clear0 the purpose for accepting this
view is purely apologetic in nature. It har%oni)es with the then prevailingview with respect to chastity. This ad hoc nature of the e3planation invites
e3treme skepticism.
• In the gospel of Luke ):?*(0 the idea of Jesus !eing Marys firstborn loses
much of its force if he was also not Josephs first*!orn. >or inheriting the
kingdom of David must surely go to the eldest in the fa%ily. Thus if Jesus
had elder !rothers through Josephs previous marriage0 Lukes phrase loses
much of its force. The fact that Luke phrased it the way he did can only
mean that he knew of no such tradition0 of Jesus having an older !rother0 at
the time of his writing 6c #FF @8.
+7
The H4er$n934an V4ew
Not satisfied with Hust the perpetual virginity of Mary0 the ,estern hurch went a step
further and suggested that Joseph was a virgin as well. Therefore it was no longer
permissi!le for Joseph to have had se3ual intercourse with a hypothetical earlier wife
Thus the 4!rothers and sisters5 were claimed to !e 4cousins5 of Jesus. This 4cousin
hypothesis5 was first put forward !y @use!ius0 2ishop of aesarea 6c)?F*c+9F8. This
suggestion is normally called the !ierony%ian View0 after Jerome 6c+9)*9)F80 whosefull name was @use!ius 1ieronymous0 since it was he who fleshed out this
hypothesis.
Jerome did not like the @piphanian view !ecause it was !ased0 in his opinion0 on
spurious works such as The 4rotoevangeliu% of Ja%es. 1e sought to derive the idea
of Marys perpetual virginity from canonical sources alone. Jeromes argument0 put
forward in his *gainst !elvidius0 written in +E+ @0 is a four step process.
• >irst0 he cited Kaul in ;alatians:
;alatians #:#E*#7
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Keter0 and stayed
with him fifteen days. 2ut of the other apostles I saw no one0 e3cept
James0 the Lords !rother.
Jerome takes the statement a!ove to mean that James was one of the twelve
apostles.
• 'econd0 in the list of the twelve apostles given in Mark +:#+*#7 6and
Matthew #F:#*980 there were two Jamess0 one !eing the son of Ae!edee
and the other !eing the son of lphaeus. 'ince we know that John the son
of Ae!edee could not !e James the !rother of the Lord0 this means that
Now in the si3th month0 the angel ;a!riel was sent from ;od to a city of ;alilee0
named Na%areth0 to a virgin pledged to !e married to a man whose name was
Joseph0 of the house of David.
'o Luke makes Mary and Joseph natives of ;alilee. The event that made them travelto 2ethlehem was the Boman census under Cuirinius. ccording to the evangelist0
the Boman census re&uired all to register in the town of their ancestors. 'ince David
was from 2ethlehem0 Joseph had to travel to Judea to register himself .
Luke ):#*(
Now it happened in those days0 that a decree went out from aesar ugustus that
all the world should !e enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Cuirinius
was governor of 'yria. *ll went to enroll the%selves# everyone to his own city$
Joseph also went up fro% -alilee# out of the city of :a)areth# into Judea# to the city
of David# which is called Bethlehe%0 !ecause he was of the house and family of
David to enroll himself with Mary0 who was pledged to !e married to him as wife0
!eing pregnant. It happened0 while they were there0 that the day had come that she
should give !irth. 'he !rought forth her first!orn son.
Lukes version is historically suspect for at least three reasons. >irstly while the
Bomans do periodically conduct census at different times in various locations0 there is
simply no evidence that there ever was a simultaneous worldwide census either under
aesar ugustus or anyone else.
'econdly the %ethod of taking the census0 !y herding everyone to register in thetowns of their ancestors0 is unheard of in the history of the Boman @mpire. The
Boman censuses were always taken for economic purposes0 to determine the amount
of ta3a!le income of the residents of their provinces. These censuses were taken at
the place of residence not the ancestral hometown. >urthermore0 the census0 if
conducted in the manner descri!ed !y Luke0 was e3tremely impractica!le: each and
every Israelite will have to recall the residence of their ancestors who lived when
Joshua partitioned the land of Kalestine among the twelve tri!es0 i.e. an event that
occurred more than #0FFF years !efore the census nd why would Joseph haul Mary
along with him to 2ethlehem0 when she was already in an advanced stage of
pregnancyG The distance from Na%areth to 2ethlehem is a!out #FF kilometers and
would have taken an e3hausting ten days or so on donkey*!ack. The fact that Mary
was not even re&uired for the census further compounds this pro!lem.
Thirdly while there was one historical census when Cuirinius was governor of
'yria it happened ten years after the death of ;ing !erod . 2ut according to !oth
Matthew and Luke0 Jesus was !orn during the reign of 1erod the great 6Matthew ):#0
Luke #:<8. nd even here Josephus tells us 6nti&uities #E:#:#8 that the census !y
Cuirinius was for the province of Judea only and was purely for evaluating the
possession of the residents there for ta3ation purposes. s Joseph was a resident of
Na%areth in ;alilee0 there would have !een no need for him to !e involved in this
census under Cuirinius. -,e will review this third discrepancy in more detail later in
In short0 Lukes whole scenario is unconvincing and0 especially his description
of the method of the Boman census0 without any historical support.
ssuming0 of course0 that Luke does not have the audacity to invent his whole
account of the Nativity0 it is pro!a!le that !oth Matthew and Luke received different
and0 perhaps still amorphous0 traditions regarding the !irth of Jesus. >or instance0 it is
possi!le that the tradition stated only that Jesus was !orn in 2ethlehem not how his parents got there. 2oth Matthew and Luke then simply added details to the story as
they see fit. ould this tradition of the !irth in 2ethlehem !e !ased on historical factG
It is certainly possi!le0 of course0 that the tradition could have !een grounded on
historical fact possi!le !ut highly unlikely. >or one thing it o!viously reached !oth
evangelists in different or indefinite forms0 had it !een historical one would e3pect
more 4meat5 in the story. 'econdly the !irth in 2ethlehem supposedly fulfilled an
$ld Testament passage. This is e3plicitly stated in Matthew:
Matthew ):9*<;athering together all the chief priests and scri!es of the people0 he -"ing 1erod/
asked them where the hrist would !e !orn. They said to him0 4In 2ethlehem of
Judea0 for thus it is written through the prophet0 SPou 2ethlehem0 land of Judah
for out of you shall come forth a governor0 who shall shepherd my people0 Israel.5
Matthew was &uoting from Micah <:).
Micah <:)
2ut you0 2ethlehem @phrathahout of you one will come forth to me that is to !e
ruler in Israel
It was highly pro!a!le that the early hristians searched0 or rather ransacked0
the $ld Testament to look for references to Jesus. Then having found the verse in
Micah0 concluded that Jesus %ust have !een !orn in 2ethlehem. Indeed John (:9#*9+
showed that for some !elievers theological reasoning alone is sufficient to conclude
that the messiah %ust !e !orn in 2ethlehem:
John (:9#*9+
$thers said0 4This is the hrist.5 2ut some said0 4,hat0 does the hrist come out
of ;alileeG 1asnt the 'cripture said that the hrist comes of the seed of David0and from 2ethlehem0 the village where David wasG5
The theological reasoning is straightforward: the messiah must !e a descendent of
David 6Isaiah ##:#80 and David was from 2ethlehem 6I 'amuel #?:E8 and the new
"ing will come from this town 6Micah <:)8.
Thus the very fact that the !irth in 2ethlehem fulfils an $ld Testament prophecy
makes the whole tradition of dou!tful historicity. This caveat is an accepted principle
of historical criticism0 as the theologians Don uppitt and Keter rmstrong stated in
'o our first principle of historical criticism must !e: !e wary of any details in the
gospels which have close parallels in the $ld Testament 9+
$ur suspicion as to the !asic non*historicity of the account of the !irth in 2ethlehem
is further aroused !y the fact that apart from the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke0
there is no evidence elsewhere in the New Testament to support the assertion thatJesus was !orn in 2ethlehem. ,e find in Mark0 the oldest of all the gospels0 passages
that seem to imply the !irthplace of Jesus as Na%areth in ;alilee:
Mark ?:#
1e -Jesus/ went out from there. 1e came into his own country...
The ;reek work translated a!ove as 4own country5 is patris which means ones
native place or home town0 city or country. The whole section covered in the early
chapters of Mark show Jesus preaching in the towns and villages of ;alilee0 so hisnative place must !e a town in ;alilee. In the first verse referring to Jesus in Mark0
this is how he was introduced:
Mark #:7
It happened in those days0 that Jesus came from Na%areth of ;alilee0 and was
!apti%ed !y John in the Jordan.
nyone reading these passages in Mark0 without any references to Matthew or Luke
will dou!tless conclude that Jesus was !orn in Na%areth in ;alilee. >urthermore we
find that in all the three synoptics0 Jesus was henceforth referred to as 4the ;alilean5or 4the Na%arene5 with no further reference !eing made to his !irth in 2ethlehem.
nd in the passage we have Hust seen a!ove * John (:9#*9+ * a scene is narrated
where people dou!ted Jesus messianic status !ecause they !elieved that the messiah
had to co%e from 2ethlehem. 'urely John would have shown that the Jews dou!ts
were !ased on their own ignorance a!out Jesus ancestry and place of !irth had he
!elieved that Jesus was of the house of David and !orn in 2ethlehem. The passage
strongly suggests that John was relying on a tradition a!out Jesus that included neither
the descent from David nor the !irth in 2ethlehem. That John !elieved that Jesus
came from Na%areth can !e surmised from this passage !elow:
John #:9<*9?
Khilip found Nathanael0 and said to him0 4,e have found him0 of whom Moses in
the law0 and the prophets0 wrote: Jesus of Na%areth0 the son of Joseph.5 Nathanael
said to him0 4an any good thing come out of Na%arethG5
s Bo!ert Miller in his !ook Born Divine2 The Births of Jesus and 8ther Sons of -od
6)FF+8 pointed out0 John is normally of the ha!it of interHecting his narrative to
e3plain things he thought his readers may not understand.99 This would !e a perfect
occasion for him to inHect and e3plain that Jesus did not come from Na%areth and
9+ uppitt rmstrong0 <ho <as Jesus?: p9<99 'ee for e3amples John ):)# when he e3plains that Jesus was talking a!out his !ody
and not the temple John E:)( when he inHected that the Kharisees did not understand that
ccording to Matthews gospel0 once 1erod reali%ed that he had !een tricked !y the
wise men0 he ordered the slaughter of all male !a!ies less than two years of age living
in or around 2ethlehem:
Matthew ):#?*#E
Then 1erod0 when he saw that he was mocked !y the wise men0 was e3ceedingly
angry0 and sent out0 and killed all the male children who were in 2ethlehem and in
all the surrounding countryside0 from two years old and under0 according to the
e3act time which he had learned from the wise men. Then that which was spoken
!y Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled0 saying0 >* voice was heard in .a%ah#
la%entation# weeping and great %ourning# .achel weeping for her children she
wouldn=t be co%forted# because they are no %ore.5
1istorically0 1erod0 to put it mildly0 did not have a peaceful reign. 1is many sons and
wives were involved in !itter rivalry for his throne. 1erod was not a man to hold
family relations sacred. 1e had three of his sons e3ecuted for conspiracy. 1e
e3ecuted his !rother*in*law0 Joseph. t the urging of Josephs widow0 'alome0 he
murdered his own wife0 Mariamme. If he treated his own family !adly0 his opponents
and enemies were given even more ferocious handling. 1e murdered the Jewish 1igh
Kriest0 risto!olus III and 9< mem!ers of the 'anhedrin 9( for their support of the
1asmoneans. These are Hust samplings of 1erods atrocities. There was a well*
known ;reek pun0 attri!uted to aesar ugustus0 which goes something like 4It is
!etter to !e 1erods pig -;reek R hus/ than his son -huios/.5 fter all in order to
present himself as a Jew he kept his meals kosher Q pork*free Q thus no slaughtering
of pigs !ut he had three of his own sons killed. 1e was therefore a kind of man that
could have committed the crime Matthew attri!uted to him.
The atrocities listed a!ove are taken from Josephus *nti@uities of the Jews.
>rom Josephus own writings0 we can tell that he hated 1erod0 for he o!viously took
pleasure in noting down every crime and atrocity that was attri!uted to the Idumean
king. Many of the crimes descri!ed !y Josephus were far less 4wicked5 than the
slaughter of the innocents descri!ed !y Matthew. Now Josephus list was very
detailed. 1ad the slaughter actually occurred it would have !een an event well knownenough for the Jewish historian to have heard of it. Pet the silence of Josephus and
the a!sence of any reference to it in any contemporary secular writings 6Jewish0
;reek or Boman8 cannot !e e3plained if the event was historical. The conclusion
forces itself on us0 it never happened .
Note also that Matthew ):#?*#E claimed that this fulfilled an $ld Testament
prophecy of Jeremiah 6+#:#<8. ,e noted earlier how the early hristians used the
1e!rew scriptures as a happy hunting ground for allusions to their savior0 sometimes0
as in the earlier case of Isaiah (:#90 lifting verses out of conte3t in order to do so. This
is another e3ample. The passage in the $ld Testament is not a prophecy a!out thefuture !ut a story a!out the Israelites !eing deported into e3ile. Bamah was the
stopover town for the deportees !efore they are shipped out into e3ile. Let us look at
the passage in full:
9( The 'anhedrin is the supreme religious council of ancient Israel.
Thus says Pahweh: * voice is heard in .a%ah# la%entation# and bitter weeping#
.achel weeping for her children she refuses to be co%forted for her children#
because they are no %ore$ Thus says Pahweh: Befrain your voice from weeping0
and your eyes from tears for your work shall !e rewarded0 says Pahweh and theyshall come again from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your latter end0 says
Pahweh and your children shall come again to their own border $
The italici%ed portion was the one lifted out !y Matthew !ut note the last line in
!oldface. ccording to the passage Pahweh promised that her children will return
again to their own country There is no prophecy here0 merely the metaphorical
weeping of an important figure in Judaism 6Bachel was dead long !efore the e3ile8 for
a national calamity. Let us repeat the difference again. Bachel was not weeping a!out
!a!ies !ut a!out the Israelites as her 6metaphorical8 4children5 and she was notweeping a!out their deaths !ut a!out their deportation. It was a story a!out the e3ile
and has nothing to do with a prophecy of a future massacre of !a!ies. 9E
>urthermore0 the story in Matthew is very similar to the $ld Testament story of
the !a!y Moses escape from the pharaoh slaughter of the Israelite children:
@3odus #:#<*#?
The king of @gypt spoke to the 1e!rew midwives0 of whom the name of the one
was 'hiphrah0 and the name of the other Kuah0 and he said0 4,hen you perform the
duty of a midwife to the 1e!rew women0 and see them on the !irth stool if it is a
son0 then you shall kill him !ut if it is a daughter0 then she shall live.5
Just like the escape of Moses from the clutches of the pharaohs slaughter0 so was
Jesus to escape from the grip of 1erods massacre. The parallel in these two stories is
strongly suggestive of Matthews dependence on the @3odus episode for this portion
of his nativity.97
s an aside0 it is interesting to consider this pericopae from the framework of the
pro!lem of evil. Note that in this story0 ;od intervened !y revealing to the wise men
in a dream not to go !ack to Jerusalem so that 1erod would not know where e3actly
the !a!y Jesus was. It was !ecause of not knowing this e3act location that 1erod hadall the male !a!ies !elow two years of age in 2ethlehem slaughtered. nd also it was
revealed to Joseph in a dream to take Mary and Jesus and flee to @gypt to avoid this
massacre. s the #7th century critical historical scholar David 'trauss 6#EFE*#E(98
pointed out0 ;od0 if he wanted to avoid the massacre of the innocents0 could easily
have intervened supernaturally at the beginning !y making the wise men avoid
Jerusalem altogether and head on to 2ethlehem directly. That way 1erod would never
have heard of the !irth of the messiah<F
9E Miller0 Born Divine2 p##9*##<49 simov0 ;uide to the 2i!le: p(7<*(7?
uppitt rmstrong0 ,ho ,as JesusG: p9?
>reed0 The Stories of Jesus= Birth: p#F)
Miller0 Born Divine2 p#E9
,ilson0 Jesus: The @vidence0 p9E<F Ldemann0 The Virgin Birth?: pE#*E9
,hen srael was a child0 I loved him0 and out of 7gypt called %y son. The more I
called them0 the more they went from me they kept sacrificing to the 2aals and
!urning incense to idols.
This is certainly straining the idea of prophecy to the e3treme. >irstly the passage
refers to srael as ;ods son. Indeed the whole passage 61osea ##:#*(8 refers to anevent in the past0 the @3odus from @gypt0 and to ;ods intention to punish Israel for
their lack of faith Matthew has thus lifted his 4prophecy5 out of conte3t from a
passage that has nothing to do with a prophecy.<9
To summari%e matters0 Matthews tale a!out the soHourn in @gypt cannot !e
historical !ecause of three reasons: firstly it 4fulfils5 prophecy0 secondly he had an
agenda to use Jesus life to sym!oli%e what happen to Israel in the past << and thirdly
this trip is not alluded to anywhere else in the New Testament.<?
ON HERO/ AN/ =IRINIS
It is easy to add an aura of authenticity to ones story !y adding0 as a kind of
!ackdrop0 historical persons and events. This is what writers of historical fiction do
to create verisimilitude. Done properly it adds to our enHoyment and also to our
understanding of the actual historical period. 1owever sometimes we come across
!ungling writers who get their history and dates mi3ed up irritating the informed
reader and misleading the uninformed one. Luke most definitely !elonged to the
class of !ungling authors of historical fiction. This is especially clear in his attempts
to connect Jesus !irth to worldwide events of that time.
ccording to Matthew and Luke0 Jesus was !orn during the reign of 1erod the
;reat 6Matthew ):#0 Luke #:<ff8.<( Now we know from secular sources that 1erod
was definitely an historical figure. ,e also know0 with some accuracy0 the actual date
of 1erods death: towards the end of March in the year 9 2@. This is !ecause
Josephus recorded the e3ecution of 9) people who had staged an unsuccessful revolt
against the Idumean. There was an eclipse of the moon that occurred during the night
of this e3ecution 6nti&uities of the Jews #(:?:98. This allows for precise
astronomical calculations which set the date of e3ecution as March #+0 9 2@. Now
<9
2radlaugh0 !u%anity=s -ain 3ro% (nbelief : p#+( Miller0 Born Divine2 p##+*##<<< The slaughter of the innocent mirrors the nativity story in Moses and the travel in and
out of @gypt recalls the @3odus.<? Miller0 Born Divine: p#?(<(
Matthew states this unam!iguously:
Matthew ):#
Now when Jesus was !orn in 2ethlehem of Judea in the days of "ing 1erod
Matthew even attri!uted the trip to @gypt as an escape from 1erods massacre 6Matthew
):#+*#?8. lthough we cannot find a singular statement in Luke as we find in Matthew
):#0 his position is also that Jesus was !orn during the reign of "ing 1erod. ,e are first
told a!out the announcement of the !irth of John the 2aptist was made to his father
Aecharias during the reign of "ing 1erod the ;reat 6Luke #:<*)<8. ,e are told that when
Aecharias wife0 @li%a!eth0 was si3 month pregnant0 the annunciation to Mary took place
6Luke #:)?*+E8.That Mary was pregnant !efore John was !orn can !e deducted from
Luke #:9) where @li%a!eth is &uoted as !lessing the fruit of Marys wom!.
we are told that 1erod died a few days after this e3ecution0 which makes his death
around the second half of March 9 2@.<E Thus0 !ased on the gospel narratives0 Jesus
must have !een !orn !efore or around 9 2@.
1owever Lukes e3cuse for !ringing Joseph and Mary to 2ethlehem was the
Boman census of Cuirinius 6Luke ):#8. ,hile we have pro!lems with Lukes
description of the method of the census 6as was discussed earlier80 the census itself
was undou!tedly an historical event for Josephus descri!ed a Jewish revolt that
resulted from this census. The date of the census0 like the death of 1erod0 can also !e
dated with some precision. Josephus clearly states that the census took place +( years
after aesar defeated ntony at ctium0 which was fought on 'eptem!er )0 +# 2@
6another precise dating !ased on astronomy8 !ased on our present system of
reckoning. This means that census under Cuirinius took place in the year ? @. ,e
also know0 from Boman sources0 that Cuirinius was legate 6or governor8 of 'yria
!etween olusius 'aturninus and aecilius reticus 'ilonus0 which makes his tenure
last for si3 years0 from ? @ to #) @. These dates are therefore consistent withJosephus reckoning.<7
Now Luke said that it was this census that forced the pregnant Mary to leave
Na%areth to travel to 2ethlehem with Joseph. ,e have seen earlier that !oth gospels
state that Jesus was !orn during the reign of 1erod the ;reat 6i.e. 9 2@8. 1owever0
1erod had !een dead for ten years when the census took place in ? @. This
fundamental inconsistency shows that Luke had resorted to fiction to tie in the nativity
with historical events.
The dates for the death of 1erod 69 2@8 and the census under Cuirinius 6? @8
are historically unassaila!le. 'o how do the fundamentalistOevangelical apologists tryto wriggle their way out of thisG The normal 4e3planation5 was that the census
referred to !y Luke was an earlier census than the one mentioned !y Josephus. nd
to maintain their !eloved dogma of !i!lical inerrancy0 they had also suggested that
Cuirinius was twice governor of 'yria0 once in ? @ to #) @ and once earlier0 during
the reign of 1erod.?F
1owever this apologetic attempt fails. Let us list out the historical facts against
such an e3planation.
>irstly0 there is no historical documentation of a census under Boman auspices
earlier than ? @ in Judea. s mentioned a!ove0 the Boman census is taken primarilyfor ta3ation purposes. It only !ecame necessary in Judea in ? @ after rchelaus was
deposed and the province of Judea came under direct Boman rule. 2efore this Judea
was a 4client kingdom50 i.e. under Boman domination !ut not under direct Boman
rule. No Boman census in a client kingdom had ever !een recorded. t any rate
1erod the ;reat was a very o!edient su!Hect of Bome who paid his dues properly.
There was no need for Bome to intervene directly with any kind of census in Judea .?#
n earlier census is also impossi!le for a few other reasons. s Josephus
mentioned0 in ? @ the census provoked a revolt among the Jewish people who had
<E raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p?#*?+<7 ;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p7(0 #FF?F McDowell0 7vidence That De%ands a Verdict : p(#61 ;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#FF
never taken kindly to foreign domination and to censuses. @ven when the census was
done !y "ing David himself it was not viewed in a favora!le light. Thus we have the
!ook of hronicles attri!uting Davids desire for census to the influence of the devil:
I hronicle )#:#
'atan stood up against Israel0 and moved David to num!er Israel.
people who had historically !een hostile to even their own "ing taking a census
would not su!missively allow some foreign power do the same and0 according to
Josephus0 they didnt. If an earlier census had occurred it would have provoked a
similar reaction from the Jews that would have !een impossi!le for historians to have
missed. 'ome have suggested that the earlier census was carried out !y 1erod in
accordance with Jewish customs and this would have prevented any riots from the
inha!itants of Kalestine. This e3planation is e&ually unaccepta!le. 1erod0 !eing an
Idumean0 was considered !y the Jews to !e as foreign as the Bomans It simplystretches credulity to assert that there was an earlier census conducted in Judea that
went unnoticed !y historians.?)
In desperation0 some apologists have pointed to the wording in the gospel of
Luke a!out the census:
Luke ):)
This was the first enrollment -i.e. census/ made when Cuirinius was governor of
'yria.
They argue that the use of the word 4first5 implies that there was a second census
under Cuirinius and that this latter census was the one Josephus mentioned in ? @.
Thus the 4first5 census must have !een earlier than this. 'o despite the lack of
historical evidence and the reasons given a!ove0 they insist on an earlier census !ased
on this one verse.
lthough in general the use of the word 4first5 does imply 4second05 in this
specific case it does not. There are two reasons why this is so. >irstly it is &uite clear
that Luke is aware of only one census as attested !y this passage in cts:
cts <:+(
fter this man0 Judas of ;alilee rose up in the days of the enrollment0 and drew
away some people after him. 1e also perished0 and all0 as many as o!eyed him0
were scattered a!road.
The use of the definite article 4the5 6;reek R tes8 for the census clearly shows that
Luke knew only one census in Judea. 'econdly the conte3t of this passage clearly
does not imply a 4second.5 Its meaning in such conte3ts is that this is something
uni@ue that has not !een done !efore. The use of the word 4first5 6;reek R protos8 in
Luke ):) means that it was the first census conducted by the .o%ans in Judea. Its usein this sense does not necessarily imply that there was a second census. ,e can see
It was David0 therefore0 who first cast the Je!usites out of Jerusalem
-or * David was the first to drive the Je!usites out of Jerusalem/
'ince the Je!usites were never driven out of Jerusalem a second time0 the use of the
term 4first5 means that Davids feat was0 until that time0 uni&ue. It does not imply thatthe Je!usites were driven out a second time from Jerusalem after David. This is
e3actly the same way the word is used in Luke ):). ?+
The second point of the conservative apologists is that Cuirinius was governor
of 'yria twice0 once in ? @ and once earlier0 during the reign of 1erod the ;reat.
This suggestion 6apart from the o!vious need to save the faith of the apologists8 was
!ased on a fragmentary inscription found in ntioch that supposedly referred to
Cuirinius as the governor of 'yria at an earlier date than ? @. ?9
1owever this e3planation is0 as usual0 flawed.?< The suggestion that the
inscription could !e understood to refer to Cuirinius a governor was first made !y theapologist 'ir ,illiam Bamsey 6#E<#*#7+78. The inscription simply mentioned that
Cuirinius was honored for his role in achieving a military victory. It was Bamsey who
guessed that Cuirinius reward for his role was an earlier appointment0 prior to ? @0
as governor of 'yria. Nothing in the inscription even suggests this. It is not surprising
that most historians are of the opinion that the inscription does not provide any
evidence to support the assertion that Cuirinius was governor of 'yria earlier than ?
@.??
>urthermore from Josephus we know most of the Boman governors of 'yria
during that time. Ta!le ##.+ !elow shows the governors of 'yria from )+ 2@ to (@. Two Boman governors of 'yria during the last years of 1erods reign were .
'entius 'aturninus0 who held the post from 7 to ? 2@0 and K. Cuintilius arus was
his successor from ? to 9 2@. nd it was Cuintillus arus who0 as governor0
suppressed the uprising that occurred after the death of 1erod.
Year6 $> G$vern$r6h4p Na3e $> G$vern$r
)+*#+ 2@ M.grippa
#+*## 2@ G
c. #F 2@ M. Titius
7*? 2@ . 'entius 'aturninus
?*9 2@ -after the death of 1erod/ K. Cuintilius arus
?+ 2rown0 2irth of the Messiah: p??E?9 McDowell0 7vidence That De%ands a Verdict : p(#?<
Note that to prove the narrative in Luke correct the apologists have to show two
things to !e historically true: first that there was an earlier Boman census in Judea and
second that Cuirinius was also governor of 'yria during that census. ,e have seen that
the idea of an earlier census is totally without historical support and goes against all that
we know of the Boman @mpire. Thus even if the apologists succeeded in proving that
Cuirinius was governor of 'yria twice0 the first pro!lem still remains.?? 2rown0 The Birth of the Messiah: p<<F*<<#
The discussions a!ove should show why the date of Jesus !irth cannot !e esta!lish
with any certainty. If Jesus was !orn during the reign of 1erod the ;reat then it must
have !een !efore or around 9 2@. If he was !orn during the Boman census then it
must have !een in ? @. These two dates are not the only discrepancies in
determining the !irth date of Jesus. Luke states that Jesus was a!out +F years old
when he !egan to preach 6Luke +:)+8 and that was during the 4fifteenth year of the
reign of Ti!erias aesar5 6Luke +:#8. Now we know that ugustus aesar died in #9
@ and that Ti!erias was his successor. Thus the #<th year of his reign would !e
around )7 or +F @. This sets his !irth date around # 2@ or # @. In John we have
a passage that implies that Jesus was close to <F years old during the time of his
ministry:
John E:<(The Jews therefore said to him0 4Pou are not yet fifty years old0 and have you seen
!rahamG5
There is nothing sym!olic a!out the num!er 6or age8 <F. Thus it is likely that John
meant the passage to show that Jesus was in his 6pro!a!ly late8 forties. This will
!ring the !irth date of Jesus to slightly after )F 2@. In the references a!ove we have
five different !irth dates of Jesus: c)F 2@ 6John80 c9 2@ 6Matthew and Luke80 c #
2@ or c# @ 6Luke80 ? @ 6Luke8. This date gives a discrepancy of more than a
&uarter of a century 'o much for !i!lical inerrancy.
$ur present system of counting years 2 6or 2@8 and D 6or @8 was first
esta!lished !y a 'cythian monk named Dionysius The Less 6 Dionysius 7,iguus8 who
lived in Bome during the ?th century @. The Bomans had counted the years from
the foundation of the city Bome -a.u.c. R ab urbe condita/. round the year <+9 @0
Dionysius0 aptly titled 4The Less50 !ased his calculations entirely on Luke +:# and
Luke +:)+. 1e allowed for one year to pass !etween the commencements of John the
2aptists and Jesus respective ministries. This makes Jesus preaching start around
the #?th year of Ti!erius aesars reign0 which he set at +F @ with Jesus !eing +F
years old 6Dionysius ignored Lukes about 8 then. This was the year (<9 a.u.c. which
he e&uated with # D 6anno do%ini Q the year of our lord8 or # @. 'o # @ !ecamethe year of Jesus !irth. The monk did not have any e3ternal means of fi3ing the date
of 1erods death 6which was four years earlier Q at (<F a.u.c8 and the Judean census.
$f course0 he wouldnt have thought he needed to0 as the gospels cannot0 in his !elief0
contain any error. 'o thanks to a !ungling hristian monk we now figure our dates !y
2@ and @ with the year # @ actually !ased on an event of uncertain date(F
The ne3t piece of fact should pro!a!ly no longer come as a surprise to the
reader: Jesus was not !orn on Decem!er )<th. Neither Luke nor Matthew gave any
indication of Jesus actual !irthday. Like many things hristian0 the origin of this date
comes from the cele!ration of the pagan religions that nascent hristianity had to
compete against. 1ere too0 we see hristianity assimilating portions of paganisms
into its structure.
Decem!er )<th was the date of the winter solstice.(# fter this0 the winter0
having reached its peak0 slowly gives way to spring. The winter solstice therefore0
had !een traditionally in Boman times0 a period of unrestrained cele!ration. The
cele!ration was called the Dies :atalis Solis nvicti or 4the !irthday of the
uncon&uered sun.5 In the pagan religion of Mithraism0 which was a form of sun
worship0 the winter solstice was naturally an occasion of great cele!ration. The
worship of Sol nvictus0 the 'un ;od0 !ecame so popular that !y )(90 the Boman
@mperor urelian 6c)#)*)(<8 gave official sanction to Decem!er )<th as the !irthday
of that ;od. hristianity in it !attle with the pagan religions for converts slowlyassimilated their cele!rations and !eliefs. hristmas day !ecame one of the
assimilated cele!rations. 2y the year +<9 we already have documents referring to
Decem!er )<th as the !irthday of Jesus. 2y 99F hristians were cele!rating the
winter solstice as the !irthday of Jesus. 2y the ?th century0 during the reign of
@mperor Justinian 6<)(*<?<80 it had !ecome recogni%ed as an official "hristian
holiday.()
Thus one of the most important dates in the hristian calendar0 like so many
portions of the nativity0 is an assimilated pagan cele!ration.
MATTHE%S +RO+HECY 8L8ILMENT
nyone who has read Matthews nativity will note how often he tried to tie the events
in Jesus life to $ld Testaments prophesies. s we have seen in various sections in
this chapter0 Matthew referred to an $ld Testament prophecy five times in his nativity
of Jesus:
#. The virgin !irth: Matthew #:))*)+ O Isaiah (:#9
). The !irthplace of Jesus as 2ethlehem: Matthew ):9*< O Micah <:)
+. The slaughter of the innocents: Matthew ):#E O Jeremiah +#:#<
9. The return from @gypt: Matthew ):#9*#< O 1osea ##:#*)
<. Jesus origin from Na%areth: Matthew ):)+ O GG
Let us first review how Matthew used the $ld Testament prophecies. The prophecy
of the virgin !irth is mistranslation of the 1e!rew 2i!le0 the term 4virgin5 is not
(# 2y the old Boman calendar0 in our new slightly modified calendar0 the winter solstice
falls on Decem!er )#.72 simov0 -uide to the Bible: p7+#*7+)
found in there !ut in the ;reek 'eptuagint. 1e had no &ualms a!out lifting passages
completely out of their conte3ts and treats them as prophecies. Thus the Isaiah
prophecy was meant for ha% and had nothing to do with events centuries in the
future. The cry of Bachel in Jeremiah was meant for the Israelites going into e3ile0 not
for the deaths of !a!ies in 2ethlehem. The passage a!out the calling of ;ods son in
1osea refers to the Israelites returning from @gypt during the @3odus. 1e changed the
wording in Micah <:) !ecause he did not feel it gave enough prestige to 2ethlehem.
1ow many of these prophecies came trueG ,e have seen that the virgin !irth is
unhistorical0 that Jesus was more likely !orn in Na%areth not 2ethlehem0 the massacre
of the !a!ies in 2ethlehem did not happen and that the whole trip to @gypt was a
fictitious invention of Matthew. The only one that 4came true5 was the fact that Jesus
was called a Na%arene. =nfortunately this is the only one where the $ld Testament
passage cannot !e found i.e. Matthew had 4made up5 the one prophecy that 4came
true5(+
THE REST O8 THE NATIVITY
ll our earlier analysis has shown that a maHor portion of the story of the !irth of
Jesus is unhistorical. Now we shall look at the status of the rest of the nativity
episodes in Matthew and Luke.
Matthew ):#*#) descri!es the appearance of the wise men 4from the east5 who
came looking for Jesus !ecause they saw a 4star in the east5. nd when they found
him they offered him presents of 4gold0 incense and myrrh.5(9 The pro!lem is0 despite
diligent research !y scholars no!ody really knows the identity and the origins of thesewise men.(< s for the star0 many suggestions had !een made: a nova0 a comet and
even a planetary conHunction of 'aturn and Jupiter. None of these were successful:
there was no nova recorded during the period of Jesus !irth 1alleys comet
appeared in #)O## 2@ !ut that was too far !ack to satisfy most hristian theologians
and the planetary conHunction of 'aturn and Jupiter occurred in ( 2@ !ut the
distance !etween the planets0 as viewed from the earth0 was still far enough apart for
each of the planets to !e discerna!le as separate o!Hects. It was highly unlikely that
they could have !een mistaken for a single star.(?
It should also !e remem!ered that the occurrence of heavenly phenomena is acommon theme in ;reco*Boman legends. >or instance a comets appearance in the
sky during the death of Julius aesar 6c##F*9928 was recorded !y 'uetinus while
the same phenomena that accompanied the !irth of Mithridates 6c#+)*?+280 "ing of
Kontus0 was recorded !y the historian Justin.((
(+ Miller0 Born Divine: p#?9*#?((9
The myths that grew on this gospel story were so lu3uriant that popular
imagination asserted that there were three +ings 6not an uncertain num!er of wise men8
and their names were Melchior0 ;asper and 2altha%ar. These are of course merely more
legendary accretions to an already unhistorical story.(< Biedel et.al.0 The Boo+ of the Bible: p9??76 simov0 -uide to the Bible: p(7#*(7)
raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p<E
Miller0 Born Divine: p#F)(( raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p<(*<E
In view of the lack of historical support for the story of the wise men and the star
of 2ethlehem it is very likely that the whole story was composed !y Matthew from
$ld Testament passages:(E
On the 6tar 4n the ea6t;
Num!ers )9:#( star will come out of Jaco!. scepter will rise out of Israel
On the w46e 3en
Isaiah ?F:+
Nations shall come to your light0 and kings to the !rightness of your rising.
On the4r pre6ent6
Isaiah ?F:?
they shall !ring gold and frankincense.
s for the significance of myrrh0 I &uote Marina ,arners *lone of *ll !er Se,:
The myrrh appeared...in the !ook of @3odus0 when the Jews at Moses order mi3 a
chrism with which they anoint the rk of the ovenant * an apt sym!ol that the
child accepts the wise mens myrrh is the anointed one who will inaugurate the new
covenant.(7
ll the a!ove considerations point to the fact that Matthew concocted the whole
episode of the wise men0 the star and the gifts out of $ld Testament passages.
Lukes other episodes of the nativity also have very little claims to historicity.Like Matthew0 these episodes can !e traced directly to $ld Testament passages.
Take0 for instance0 the annunciation of the !irth of Jesus to Mary !y the angel
;a!riel. The dialogue !etween the virgin and the angel seems to !e taken wholly
from the $ld Testament. The comparison given !elow shows this clearly:EF
• The angel greets Mary the same way he 6in Daniel the angels name was also
;a!riel8 was said to have greeted Daniel:
Luke #:)E
4BeHoice0 you highly favored one5
Daniel 7:)+
4for you are greatly !eloved5
• nd ;a!riels reassurance to Mary is similar to that he gave Daniel:
Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: pE9*E<(E ,arner0 *lone of *ll !er Se,: p?(7 ,arner0 *lone of *ll !er Se,: p?EF ,arner0 *lone of *ll !er Se,: p##
In another $ld Testament passage0 an angel greets ;ideon in the same words that;a!riel used with Mary:
Luke #:)E
The angel said to her0 4The Lord is with you...5
Judges ?:#)
nd the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him0 4The Lord is
with you...5
No critical scholar considers the two canticles in Luke0 Marys0 The Magnificat 6Luke
#:9?*<<8 and Aechariahs The Benedictus 6Luke #:?(*(78 to !e actual spontaneousout!urst of poetry of ordinary people. These canticles are mainly !ased0 respectively0
on the 'eptuagint versions of the Song of !annah 6I 'amuel ):#*#F8 and on the Boo+
of 4sal%s.E#
This dependence on the $ld Testament for the episodes in the nativity stories is
almost total. In fact0 as Don uppitt and Keter rmstrong pointed out the main
outline of the nativity stories can !e derived purely fro% 8ld Testa%ent passages.E)
Ta!le ##.9 gives the nativity episodes and the $ld Testament passages that were used
as sources !y Luke and Matthew.
It is important to think a!out the implications of this. ,e know that the early
hristians !elieved Jesus was the hrist or messiah. That !elief came first.
>ollowing that they !elieve that his coming and the details of his life must have !een
foretold in the $ld Testament. Thus in cases where they have little or no direct
historical information on his life0 it is natural0 indeed e3pected0 that they would scour
through the 2i!le to look for references to Jesus life. If a passage is viewed0 however
vaguely0 as messianic !y these hristians then it follows0 in their worldview that it
%ust have happened that way. That almost every detail of the nativity has parallel in
the $ld Testament is very strong evidence that the entire story is unhistorical.
noted0 in Lukes writing 4neither historical accuracy nor realistic story telling has a
high priority.5E+
>urthermore as ;erd Ldemann points out0 the statement in Luke ):<#0 that his
mother 4kept all these sayings in her heart5 clearly reveals the authors attempt to
e3plain why this story appeared so late in the tradition. -$ne can imagine the
&uestion from some more skeptical hearers of this story 41ow come we have never
heard of this !eforeG5 !eing answered with the retort0 4,ell0 Mary didnt tell anyone
a!out this until much later.5/E9
The num!ers used in the telling of the story0 + 6days lost8 and #) 6age of Jesus8
reveals the artificial nature of the whole story. Three is the messianic figure and
twelve was the age of 'olomon when he !ecame "ing. Daniel too came into
prominence at twelve years of age. nd according to Jewish legend0 Moses separated
himself from his family at that age. ccording to Josephus0 'amuel !ecame a prophet
at age twelve 6nti&uities <:#F:98.E<
Becall from the previous chapter that Luke copied and used some material fromJosephus. 1ere0 again0 we find that Luke had pro!a!ly used the Jewish historian as
his source again. In Josephus auto!iography0 The Life of 3lavius Josephus he
mentioned that he had a precocious childhood and had a wide learning of Jewish
religious matters. This is what Josephus himself said of his childhood:
Life of >lavius Josephus )
Moreover0 when I was a child0 and a!out fourteen years of age0 I was commended
!y all for the love I had to learning on which account the high priests and principal
men of the city came then fre&uently to me together0 in order to know my opiniona!out the accurate understanding of points of the law.
Note the point a!out the high priests and the principle men of Jerusalem consulting
him due to his accurate understanding of the law and the story in Luke a!out the
twelve year old Jesus who ama%ed the teachers of the law with his understanding of
the Law. >urthermore we find that Josephus story a!out Moses childhood pro!a!ly
influence Luke as well. In nti&uities ):7:?0 Josephus wrote that Moses
4understanding5 -;reek R synesis/ !ecame superior to his age and not in accordance
to his 4stature5 -;reek R heli+ia/. In Luke ):9( the teachers of the Law were 4ama%ed
at his understanding - synesis/5 and in Luke ):<) that Jesus increased in 4stature5
-heli+ia/.
,e have seen earlier that Luke used the 'ong of 1annah 6I 'amuel ):#*#F8 as
the !asis for Marys Magnificat . 1annah was the mother of the prophet 'amuel. Luke
used 'amuels childhood as the !asis for this childhood incident as well.E?
E+ Miller0 Born Divine: p??E9 Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: p##E*##7E< >reed0 The Stories of Jesus= Birth: p#9E
;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#9+
Miller0 Born Divine: p?7*(FE? >reed0 The Stories of Jesus= Birth: p#9E*#97