Chap11-The Nativity

8/10/2019 Chap11-The Nativity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chap11-the-nativity 1/47

Chapter Eleven

THE NATIVITY

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 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

<9



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

Nathan.+

+ Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: p#)#

<<



Ta!le ##.# on the ne3t page summari%es in ta!ular form the generations from

Jesus to David as given !y !oth gospels. 9 &uick glance at the ta!le will reveal the

glaring inconsistencies in !oth lists. >rom Joseph to David0 with the e3ception of

'healtiel and Aeru!!a!el<0 none of the other names coincide nd worse0 Luke has 9+

generations from David to Jesus0 Matthew lists only )E0 giving a discrepancy of #<

generations. ssuming an average of )< to +F years per generation0 this !rings the

disparity of a!out four centuries !etween the genealogies.? In short0 to put it !luntly0

the two genealogies contradict one another at almost every turn.

Matthew 1:1-11 Luke :!-1Matthew 1:1-11

"#$nt%&'

Luke :!-1 "#$nt%&'

1( Jesus

!( Joseph

+. Jaco!

9. Matthan<. @lea%ar

?. @luid

(. chim

E. Aadok

7. %or

#F. @liakim

##. !iud

1!( Zerubbabel

1( Shealtiel

1( Jesus

!( Joseph

+. 1eli

9. Matthat<. Levi

?. Melchi

(. Jannai

E. Joseph

7. Mattathias

#F. mos

##. Nahum

#). @sli

#+. Naggai

#9. Maath#<. Mattathias

#?. 'emein

#(. Josech

#E. Joda

#7. Joanan

)F. Bhesa

!1( Zerubbabel

!!( Shealtiel

#9. Jechoniah

#<. Josiah

#?. mon

#(. Manasseh#E. 1e%ekiah

#7. ha%

)F. Jotham

)#. =%%iah

)). Joram

)+. Jehoshapat

)9. sa

)<. !iHah

)?. Beho!oam

)(. 'olomon!)( David

)+. Neri

)9. Melchi

)<. ddi

)?. osam)(. @lmadam

)E. @r

)7. Joshua

+F. @lie%er

+#. Jorim

+). Matthat

++. Levi

+9. 'imeon

+<. Judah

+?. Joseph+(. Joanm

+E. @liakim

+7. Melea

9F. Menna

9#. Mattatha

9). Nathan

*( David

Ta!le ##.#: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke

Throughout the centuries many ingenious attempts has !een made !y hristians to

overcome this o!vious contradiction.

A+OLOGETIC ATTEM+T ,1:

THE LEVIRATE

9 >enton0 Saint Matthew: p+?<

The names of 'healtiel and Aeru!!a!el really could not have !een omitted !y !oth

evangelists given the strong connection of those names with the return from e3ile 6@%ra

<:)86 raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p#7

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p##+

<?



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: #:(

<(



Matthew applied to Joseph while the one in Luke applied to Mary This e3planation

does not hold water. In the first place !oth gospels state e3plicitly that they are

tracing Jesus ancestors from Josephs side 6Matthew #:#? Luke +:)+*see a!ove8. In

fact Luke0 the one the apologists claim traces the ancestry from Mary0 always refers to

Joseph whenever he talks a!out ancestry of David:

Luke #:)?*)(

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

Joseph# of the house of David$

Luke ):9

Joseph also went up from ;alilee0 out of the city of Na%areth0 into Judea0 to the city

of David0 which is called 2ethlehem0 because he was of the house and fa%ily of

David

>urthermore Luke0 !y making Mary the relative of @li%a!eth 6Luke #:+?80 whom he

gave as a descendent of priestly family of aron#F 6Luke #:<8 immediately makes

Mary a mem!er of that family.

In the second place the Jews do not admit to transmission of !irthright !y the

mother0 as 't. Jerome rightly said0 4It is not the custom of the scriptures to count

women in their genealogies.5 Thus a genealogy traced from Marys side is of no

value in determining the descent from David.## The fact that this discredited medieval

e3planation is still the same one used !y some !elievers today only serves to

underline the !ankrupt state of evangelicalOfundamentalist hristian theology.

OTHER +RO0LEMS ITH THE GENEALOGY

The contradictions remain. 'ome conservative commentators have tried to e3plain

away this pro!lem !y saying that we should still give the genealogies the !enefit of

the dou!t !ecause there are other ancient contemporaneous genealogies that are

authentic and that great care was taken to preserve these. 1owever this defense does

not cut it. t !est it e3plains the importance of genealogies in the ancient world and

why !oth Matthew and Luke0 independently0 felt compelled to present one for Jesus.It does not e3plain away the discrepancies.#)

'o0 at !est0 only one of these genealogies can !e true0 at worst0 !oth could !e

false. an we find out one way or the otherG Pes we can

Let us look at Matthews genealogy first. >or reasons unknown to us today0 !ut

pro!a!ly with some important spiritual significance for the author and his readers0

Matthew presents an impressive piece of numerology concerning the ancestors of

Jesus:

Matthew #:#(

#F aron0 according to tradition0 the !rother of Moses was the first mem!er of the

priestly line0 all descendents from aron were also appointed priests 6@3odus )E8## ;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#F(0##9#) Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: p#))

<E



'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

list in ta!ular form.

>rom !raham to David

6Matthew #:)*?a8

>rom David to the @3ile

6Matthew #:?!*##8

>rom the @3ile to hrist

6Matthew #:#)*#?8

1( A2raha3 1( /av4& 1( 5e#h$n4ah

). Isaac ). 'olomon ). 'healtiel

+. Jaco! +. Beho!oam +. Aeru!!a!el

9. Judah 9. !iHah 9. !iud

<. Kere% <. sa <. @liakim

?. 1e%ron ?. Jehoshapat ?. %or

(. Bam &$ Jora% (. Aadok

E mminada! '$ ())iah E. chim

7. Nahshon 7. Jotham 7. @luid

#F. 'almon #F. ha% #F. @lea%ar

##. 2oa% ##. 1e%ekiah ##. Matthan#). $!ed #). Manasseh #). Jaco!

#+. Jesse #+. mon #+. Joseph

1*( /av4& #9. Josiah 1*( 5e6u6

17( 5e#h$n4ah

Ta!le ##.): 4>ourteen5 ;enerations

,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

we look at it0 the scheme is not #9*#9*#9.#9

#+ ( demons 6Matthew #):9<80 ( loaves 6Matthew #<:+980 ( !askets 6Matthew #<:+(80 (3

forgiveness 6Matthew #E:)#80 ( !rothers 6Matthew )):)<8 ( woes 6Matthew )+8#9 Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: p?F0 #))

Miller0 Born Divine: p(7

<7



>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

father0 and changed his name to Jehoia+i%

?F



II "ings )9:? 6II hronicles +?:E8

'o Jehoia+i% slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin -RJechoniah/ his son reigned in

his place.

The genealogy is Josiah*Jehoiakim*Jechoniah Matthew had left out the middle name.

gain this name was pro!a!ly left out to make the whole list fit his numerologicalscheme.

Now if we include all the names that Matthew missed out0 we get fourteen

generations from !raham to David0 and we get eighteen generations from David

6!ut not counting David again8 to the e3ile 6to Jechoniah and not counting his name

for the ne3t section8 and only thirteen generations from the e3ile to Jesus. Neither a

pretty nor satisfying numerological relationship#<

The conclusion regarding Matthews handling of the genealogy is most aptly

stated !y ;uigne!ert:

It is not a case of accidental forgetfulness or casual inaccuracy the redactor has

simply cut out anything that interfered with the regular pattern of the sym!olic

structure !y which he professed to prove that Jesus had fulfilled the divine

promises made to his ancestor !raham0 and had accomplished the sacred destiny

of the race of David. The prosaic facts of history mattered little to him.#?

,hile the early genealogies had their source in the $ld Testament0 the generations

after the e3ile from !iud to Joseph is taken from a source no longer known to us.

2earing in mind the way Matthew used availa!le material it is not impossi!le that

some of these names could well !e fictitious.Let us now have a look at Lukes genealogy. Lukes list is in reverse order

compared to Matthew. ,hile Matthew started with !raham and worked his way

down to Jesus0 Luke started his Jesus and worked his way up to dam. In Luke +:+<*

+?0 it is stated that 'helah was the son of ainan who0 in turn0 was the son of

rpha3ad:

Luke +:+<*+?

... the son of Shelah0 the son of "ainan0 the son of *rpha,ad 0...

Thus according to Luke0 'helah was the grandson of rpha3ad. 1owever0 the

1e!rew $ld Testament e3plicitly stated that rpha3ad was the father of 'helah.

;enesis #F:)9

*rpachshad !ecame the father of Shelah....

$nly in the ;reek 'eptuagint do we find the name ainan inserted !etween rpha3ad

and 'helah.

#< simov0 -uide to the Bible: p(((*((E

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#F7*##F

Miller0 Born Divine: p((*E##? ;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p##F

?#



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*

17 simov0 -uide to the Bible: p7+E

aird0 Saint Lu+e: p#7

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p##F

Miller0 Born Divine: p(+*(<

?)





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

19 2rown0 Birth of the Messiah: p#9<*#9E

uppitt rmstrong0 ,ho ,as JesusG: p9?

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#)+

Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: p#))

,arner0 lone of ll 1er 'e3: p#7

,ilson0 Jesus: The @vidence: p#70 9E

?9



!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<+#*<++

2rown0 Birth of the Messiah: p#9<*#9E

raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p+?*+(

adou30 The Life of Jesus: p)(*+F

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#))

Miller0 Born Divine: p7+*79

?<



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+(

?(





facilitated !y a common0 !ut differently understood0 phrase0 son of -od 0 in !oth

cultures.

THE MYTH O8 MARY%S +ER+ETAL VIRGINITY

part from a !elief in the virgin !irth0 two main !ranches of hristianity0 the Boman

atholic and @astern $rthodo3 hurches0 hold that Mary remained a virgin for life.

Note that this !elief does not simply say Mary never had se3 throughout her whole

life. It also maintains that Marys hymen remained intact even after her !irth This is

what the "atechis% of the "atholic "hurch 566 says a!out the matter:

The deepening of the faith in the virginal motherhood led the hurch to confess

Marys real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving !irth to the 'on of ;od

made man. In fact0 hrists !irth 4did not diminish his mothers virginal integrity

!ut sanctified it.5++

part from this o!vious impossi!ility0 a natural reading of the gospels will show that

none of their authors ascri!ed to Mary a perpetual virginity. Let us look at a couple of

passages from Matthew and Luke.

Matthew #:)9*)<

Joseph arose from his sleep0 and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him0 and

took his wife to himself and didnt know her se3ually until she had !rought forth

her son. 1e named him Jesus.

Luke ):?*(

It happened0 while they -Joseph and Mary/ were there0 that the day had come that

she should give !irth. 'he !rought forth her firstborn son

>rom the a!ove it is implied that Joseph did have se3 with Mary after the !irth of

Jesus and that there were su!se&uent children !orn to these two. fter all to say that

you did not do until 2 happened would naturally suggest that you did do

afterwards. nd to call a child the first born from the vantage point of Luke 6i.e. who

wrote around ?F to (F years after the death of Jesus8 means that Joseph and Mary

su!se&uently had more children. s the New Testament scholar harles ;uigne!ertasserted: 4the term 4first !orn5immediately suggests the !irth of younger

children.5+9

This dovetails nicely with the information from the gospels and the epistles of

Kaul that Jesus had !rothers and sisters. The passage !elow from Mark tells us that

Jesus had a large family0 at least four !rothers and two sisters0 when he makes the

people of Na%areth ask of Jesus:

++ Cuoted in Ldemann0 Virgin Birth?: p#)+9 ;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#+F

?7



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(#

(F





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

+7 2ernheim0 Ja%es# Brother of Jesus: p#7*)F

hilton Neusner0 The Brother of Jesus: p#+*#?

raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p??*?(

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#)7*#+F

Kainter0 Just Ja%es: p#7E*)F#

(+



James the son of lphaeus was the one known as James0 the !rother of the

Lord $!viously since lphaeus is not Joseph0 this leaves the term

4!rother5 still une3plained0 so there are a couple more steps to go.

• Third0 in the scene of Jesus crucifi3ion !oth Mark and John gave a list of

women who were present there:Mark #<:9F

There were also women watching from afar0 among whom were !oth

Mary Magdalene0 and Mary the mother of James the less

6;reekR%i+rou8 and of Joses0 and 'alome

John #7:)<

2ut there were standing !y the cross of Jesus his mother0 and his

mothers sister0 Mary the wife of lopas0 and Mary Magdalene.

lthough modern translations add 4the wife5 to lopas0 the original ;reek

is missing that term and the phrase could easily !e read0 am!iguously0 as4Mary of lopas5. Jerome understood John #7:)< to mean that Mary of

lopas was the sister of Jesus mother0 also called Mary.

Now Mary of lopas given in Johns gospel is to !e identified with Mary0

the mother of James the Less and Joses given in Marks. s for the identity

of James the Less0 Jerome claimed that it makes no sense to call someone

lesser unless there is another greater . The only other 4greater5 James was

the son of Ae!edee. Now0 Jerome added0 comparisons of 4greater5 and

4lesser5 are done !etween two people only0 not three. Thus this James the

Less0 Jerome argued0 must !e the second James among the apostles. ThusMary of lopas was the mother of James0 !rother of the Lord.

• Therefore these James the Less and Joses0 are to !e identified with the names

given in Mark ?:+:

Mark ?: + 6also Matthew #+:<<*<?8

Isnt this the carpenter0 the son of Mary0 and !rother of James0 Joses0

Judah0 and 'imonG rent his sisters here with usG5 They were offended at

him.

Thus the four names and the two girls were not the children of Jesusmother0 Mary0 !ut her sister0 also called Mary

• >inally Jerome e3plained the use of the term 4!rother5. iting e3amples

from the 2i!le0 Jerome noted that the term could !e taken to mean !rother

by nature# by +inship# by race or by love. Thus !rother could mean any of

these things0 and in this particular reconstruction0 it o!viously means that

James and the rest were cousins of Jesus0 !eing the children of Marys

sister0 Mary. To this is normally added the argument that the 1e!rew

language lacks specific nouns for kinfolk. The 1e!rew word ah 6ramaic:

aha8 can mean !rother0 step!rother0 cousin0 nephew in general it can meanany !lood relative.

This0 in a nutshell0 is the 1ieronymian view. The construction is0 it must !e admitted0

intricate and ingenious and it is0 in principle0 possible. 2ut reminding the reader a!out

the difference !etween possi!ility and pro!a!ility as shown in chapter (0 the argument

rests on many highly impro!a!le suppositions:

(9



• @&uating Kauls use of the term apostle to !e synonymous with the twelve is

highly speculative. >or Kauls use of the former term seems to cover a

wider group of followers. 1e called himself an apostle 6I orinthians 7:#*

+8. In I orinthians #<:<*( he seems to differentiate !etween the twelve and

all the apostles. The former having a more restricted use than the latter.

I orinthians #<:<*(

-/nd that he appeared to ephas0 then to the twelve. Then he appeared to

over five hundred !rothers at once0 most of whom remain until now0 !ut

some have also fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James0 then to all the

apostles.

• The identity of James the Less with James the son of lphaeus is a crucial

link in Jeromes argument0 yet it is !ased purely on conHecture. It is hard to

e3plain why Mark0 who counted James0 son of lphaeus0 should fail to

make the identification in relating the son of Mary at the crucifi3ion to the

apostle.

• The ;reek tou %i+rou more pro!a!ly means 4the small5 rather than 4the

less5. If this indeed is the case0 the use of the term in a comparative sense is

none3istent. >urthermore nowhere in the gospels is James the son of

Ae!edee referred to as 4the greater5.

• nother necessary supposition is the identity of 4Mary of lopas5 and

4Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses5. Pet0 again0 this is pure

conHecture. Jerome himself did not argue too strongly for this0 !eing

content0 he wrote0 only to assert that Mary the mother of James and Joseswas not Mary0 the mother of Jesus. 1owever without that crucial

identification0 Jeromes whole argument falters >or the identity of Mary of

lopas as the sister of Mary0 mother of Jesus0 provides the whole

foundation of James !eing the cousin of Jesus.

• The vague term 4Mary of lopas5 presents another pro!lem0 it could mean

Mary wife of lopas or Mary mother of lopas. 6Indeed0 as I mentioned

a!ove0 most modern translations descri!e Mary as the wife of lopas.8 The

former would !e a pro!lem for Jeromes linkage. lthough later atholic

theologians had tried to argue that even if Mary is the wife of lopas0 thename could !e another form of lphaeus as !oth could !e derived from the

ramaic form "halphai. It is !y no means certain0 of course0 that lopas

and lphaeus come from the same ramaic name. Thus it is another

conHecture made to cover up the earlier one. Note how suppositions are

piled upon suppositions

• The suggestion that Mary0 mother of Jesus0 had a sister also called Mary is0

on the surface a!surd. Pet0 this is another crucial supposition for Jeromes

argument. 'ome atholic theologians have tried to argue that Mary0 mother

of lopas is actually the sister of Joseph and thus is Hust the sister in law of Mary0 mother of Jesus. 1ere again0 another supposition is added0 that

4sister5 can mean 4sister*in*law5.

• ,hile it is highly unlikely that si!lings would have identical names 64this is

Darrell and my other !rother Darrell58 it is certainly likely that many

(<



people during the time of Jesus shared the same names. Belatively few

Jewish names were used during that period. The names Jaco! 6RJames80

Judah 6RJude80 'imeon0 Joseph 6RJosesG8 are names of patriarchs and thus

would !e e3pected to !e popular during that time. The fact that some

unrelated people have similar names does not provide enough reason to

!ase a theory of identity on.

• >urthermore it is !y no means clear that John meant 4Mary the mother of

lopas5 to !e an e3pansion of 4the sister of Jesus mother5. The ;reek te3t

could easily !e read as referring to two separate persons: one !eing Mary

of lopas and the other !eing the 6unnamed8 sister of Mary0 mother of

Jesus.

• >inally we look at the linguistic argument. The 4paucity of familial terms5 in

1e!rew is a red herring0 since the New Testament was written in -ree+ not

1e!rew. In ;reek there are separate nouns for !rothers and cousins. The;reek word for !rother is adelphos 6plural R adelphoi9 and for cousin is

anepsios 6plural R anepsioi9. ll the evangelists used adelphoi to descri!e

his !rothers. 1ad they !een convinced that James0 Joses0 Judas and 'imon

were not Jesus !rothers0 they would have used the word anepsioi to avoid

any confusion. This is especially true for Kaul who wrote in ;reek for

;entiles. ,e see that in Kauls letters to the ;alatians he too referred to

James as Jesus !rother and to the fact that Jesus had more than one

!rother. 6'ee a!ove &uote on ;alatians #:#E*#7 and I orinthians 7:98 The

atholic theologian J.K. Meier studied +9+ passages in the New Testament

in which the word adelphos appeared. 1e concluded that0 when it is not

used figuratively or metaphorically0 it always referred to a !iological or

legal relationship !etween full !rothers or half !rothers: i.e. not cousins.

The further attempt to claim that in the 'eptuagint0 the word adelphos is

sometimes used to translate for 4cousin5 is weak. >or the occurrence of

such translation is very rare in the $ld Testament and the conte3t normally

remove any am!iguity in the kinship.

It can !e seen that the 1ieronymian view relies heavily on a series of impro!a!le

conHectures0 all of which %ust be true for the hypothesis to work. Take away one link

and the whole chain !reaks. To get the pro!a!ility of the view !eing true0 the

pro!a!ility for each difficulty !eing somehow true is %ultiplied to the ne3t. If we

allow each of the seven difficulties a!ove 6which in itself does not e3haust all the

difficulties with the theory8 a <F chance of !eing true 6a very generous assumption80

the chances of the 1eironymian view !eing correct is less than # or less than # in

#FF. Now thats a long shot

In conclusion0 there is a!solutely nothing to suggest that Mary remained a virgin

perpetually.9F

9F 2ernheim0 Ja%es# Brother of Jesus: p)F*)7

hilton Neusner0 The Brother of Jesus: p#?*)F

raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p??*?(

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#)7*#+F

Kainter0 Just Ja%es: p)#+*))F

(?



The fact that atholic theologians still insist on this doctrine should convince all

that reason has very little to do with theology. Looking at the theological

e3planations for the genealogies and for the perpetual virginity !rings to mind what

the merican novelist >rank Per!y 6#7#?*#77#8 wrote: Theology is a %ild for% of

insanity$9#

THE 0IRTH+LACE O8 5ESS

2oth Matthew and Luke stated that Jesus was !orn in 2ethlehem in Judea. 1owever

the different ways in which !oth gospels connect Jesus !irth to that Judean town

arouse suspicion. In Matthew0 the impression we get is that !oth Mary and Joseph

were already living in 2ethlehem during the time of the annunciation and the

conception:

Matthew #:)9*):#Joseph arose from his sleep0 and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him0 and

took his wife to himself and didnt know her se3ually until she had !rought forth

her first!orn son. 1e named him Jesus. :ow when Jesus was born in Bethlehe% of

Judea

Note that no mention is given of any traveling !etween Joseph taking Mary home as

his wife and the !irth of Jesus. In fact anyone reading the nativity story in Matthew

alone will conclude that Joseph and Mary were natives of 2ethlehem as is confirmed

!y the passage !elow 6after the flight of Joseph and his family to @gypt8:

Matthew ):#7*)+

2ut when 1erod was dead0 !ehold0 an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to

Joseph in @gypt0 saying0 4rise and take the young child and his mother0 and go

into the land of Israel0 for those who sought the young childs life are dead.5 1e

arose and took the young child and his mother0 and came into the land of Israel. But

when he heard that *rchelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father#

!erod# he was afraid to go there$ Being warned in a drea%# he withdrew into the

region of -alilee# and ca%e and lived in a city called :a)areth that it might !e

fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: 41e will !e called a Na%arene.5

@specially in the view of the earlier passage0 the one a!ove gives definite proof that

Joseph wanted to return to his home town of 2ethlehem !ut was prevented from

doing so !y the fact that rchelaus was the new tetrarch. 1is making Na%areth a

home came after this.

In Luke0 however0 we are told that !oth Mary and Joseph were living in the

;alilean town of Na%areth !efore the annunciation:

9# Per!y0 Judas# My Brother : p<F9

((



Luke #:)?*)(

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

this chapter./ 9)

42 2rown0 The Birth of the Messiah: p<97

raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p99

(E



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

their !ook0 <ho <as Jesus?:

rossan0 <ho is JesusG: p)+

>reed0 The Stories of Jesus= Birth: p##7

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p+F*+)

Miller0 Born Divine2 p#EF*#E#

(7



'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

Jesus was speaking a!out his father in heaven.

EF



therefore Nathanaels &uestion was moot. That he did not is strong evidence that he

!elieved Jesus was from that ;alilean town.

There are thus strong reasons to !elieve that Jesus was !orn in Na%areth. Mark

and John clearly !elieved Jesus was from there. 2oth Matthew and Luke came up

with contradictory ways to get Jesus to Na%areth after their respective nativities.

>urthermore0 the fact that his alleged !irth in 2ethlehem could !e deduced entirely

from $ld Testament messianic prophecies is strong evidence against the historicity of

such a story. In conclusion0 the tradition of Jesus !irth in 2ethlehem is not

historical.9<

It is also important to note0 despite Matthews determination to show that Jesus

nativity fulfils the scriptures0 he is not !eyond twisting $ld Testament passages when

they do not suit his paradigm. Let us look at the passage and its supposed fulfillment

again:

Matthew ):<*?They said to him0 4In 2ethlehem of Judea0 for thus it is written through the prophet0

SPou 2ethlehem0 land of Judah0 are in no way least among the princes of Judah: for

out of you shall come forth a governor0 who shall shepherd my people0 Israel.5

Matthew was &uoting from Micah. 2ut note that the original passage was slightly

different:

Micah <:)

2ut you0 2ethlehem @phrathah0 being s%all among the clans of Judah0 out of you

one will come forth to me that is to !e ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from

of old0 from everlasting.

Note how the evangelist had tried to elevate the status of 2ethlehem !y changing

Micahs 4!eing small...5 to 4are in no way least5. Matthew has changed the te3t of the

$ld Testament to say the e,act opposite of what it means This provides an important

insight into how the early hristians treated the $ld Testament 4prophecies5. They

were willing to 4correct5 prophetic writings in order to conform to their view of the

world. In this case it is o!vious that they wanted to increase the prestige of

2ethlehem as the !irthplace of Jesus.9?

45 ;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p7F

Miller0 Born Divine2 p#E#*#E+46 llegro0 The Dead Sea Scrolls: p#<F*#<#

>reed0 The Stories of Jesus= Birth: p(?*((

Miller0 Born Divine2 p##)*##+

E#



THE SLAGHTER O8 THE INNOCENTS

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.

E)



Jeremiah +#:#<*#(

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

E+



Let us pause to consider the facts: the massacre of the male !a!ies !y 1erod as

descri!ed in Matthew is an event without any historical corro!oration it fulfils an $ld

Testament prophecy 6which in itself makes the whole episode suspect8 and it closely

parallels the story of Moses escape from the clutches of the pharaoh. To all these

facts there is only one answer: the episode is a work of theological fiction0 !ased on

the story of Moses in @3odus0 composed either !y Matthew himself or the early

hristian tradition to fulfill what was thought to !e an $ld Testament prophecy a!out

the messiah.

THE RETRN; TO NA<ARETH

nother pro!lem conveniently overlooked !y !elievers is the !asic incompati!ility in

the narratives of Matthew and Luke regarding the 4return5<# of Joseph and his family

to Na%areth.

ccording to Matthew0 Joseph and Mary went there direct from @gypt0 as they

dared not return to Judea !ecause of rchelaus.

Matthew ):#7*)+

2ut when 1erod was dead0 !ehold0 an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to

Joseph in @gypt0 saying0 4rise and take the young child and his mother0 and go

into the land of Israel0 for those who sought the young childs life are dead.5 1e

arose and took the young child and his mother0 and came into the land of Israel. But

when he heard that *rchelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father#

!erod# he was afraid to go there$ Being warned in a drea%# he withdrew into the

region of -alilee# and ca%e and lived in a city called :a)areth that it might !e

fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: 41e will !e called a Na%arene.5

ccording to Luke0 Joseph went to Jerusalem from 2ethlehem for Marys purification

ceremony and from there went !ack to Na%areth:

Luke ):))0+7

,hen the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled0

they !rought him up to Jerusalem0 to present him to the Lord ,hen they had

accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord0 they returnedinto ;alilee0 to their own city0 Na%areth

Nowhere in earlier passages had Luke even implied that Mary and Joseph went

!ack to Na%areth first after the !irth of Jesus. Thus according to Luke0 Joseph0 Mary

and Jesus went to Jerusalem from 2ethlehem and then !ack to Na%areth. The itinerary

!ased on Matthew was 2ethlehem*@gypt*Na%areth0 while that of Luke was Na%areth*

2ethlehem*Jerusalem*Na%areth. The two itineraries are therefore incompati!le.

'ome theologians had0 as usual0 tried to twist the story in Matthew to such an

e3tent where they claimed that Joseph went to Jerusalem from @gypt and then went

on to Na%areth after the Temple offering. 'o the 4unified5 itinerary !ecomes:

Na%areth*2ethlehem*@gypt*Jerusalem*Na%areth. part from the fact that Matthew

<# I have put the word return in inverted commas !ecause only in Luke was it made

e3plicit that Joseph and Mary were originally from Na%areth. No such allusion is

discerna!le in Matthew 6as was discussed earlier8.

E9



had e3plicitly stated that Joseph did not return to Judea from @gypt 6Matthew ):))8 a

pro!lem of timing arises.

Luke says that Joseph and his family went !ack to Na%areth after the purification

ceremony. Jewish Law re&uires that the purification of the mother is to !e done forty

days after the !irth of the !a!y:

Leviticus #):#*?

Pahweh spoke to Moses0 saying0 4'peak to the children of Israel0 saying0 SIf a

woman conceives0 and !ears a male child0 then she shall !e unclean seven days as

in the days of her monthly period she shall !e unclean. In the eighth day the flesh

of his foreskin shall !e circumcised. 'he shall continue in the !lood of purification

thirty*three days. 'he shall not touch any holy thing0 nor come into the sanctuary0

until the days of her purifying are completed. 2ut if she !ears a female child0 then

she shall !e unclean two weeks0 as in her period and she shall continue in the

!lood of purification si3ty*si3 days. ,hen the days of her purification are

completed0 for a son0 or for a daughter0 she shall !ring to the priest at the door of

the Tent of Meeting0 a year old lam! for a !urnt offering0 and a young pigeon0 or a

turtledove0 for a sin offering.5

'o to reconcile the two nativities 6and ignoring the !asic incompati!ility we have

noted a!ove8 every event must !e fitted into these forty days. Now Luke says that

Jesus was circumcised and given his name on the eighth day 6Luke ):)#8 and

Matthew narrated a!out the story of the visit of the wise men only after Jesus was

named. 'o0 in effect the visit of the wise men0 the slaughter of the innocents0 the

flight into and the return from @gypt all took place within a period of only +) days<)

This is clearly impossi!le0 for the Hourney to and from @gypt itself would have taken

at least that long. Kerhaps ;od had his remote controller on fast forwardG

This event of leaving @gypt for Na%areth was0 according to Matthew0 in

fulfillment of two prophecies. $ne0 as we have seen a!ove0 was that Jesus was to !e

called a :a)arene 6Matthew ):)+80 the other was noted a little earlier in the gospel:

Matthew ):#9*#<

1e -Joseph/ arose and took the young child and his mother !y night0 and departed

into @gypt0 and was there until the death of 1erod that it might !e fulfilled which

was spoken !y the Lord through the prophet0 saying0 48ut of 7gypt called %y

son.5 -1osea ##:#/

Like the earlier prophecy fulfillments referred to !y Matthew Q these two are

pro!lematic. The first prophecy noted !y Matthew -in ):)+ * 41e shall !e called a

Na%arene5/ cannot !e found anywhere the $ld Testament<+ There is nothing in any

of the !ooks of the $ld Testament which says that the messiah will !e called a

Na%arene. The second prophecy is supposedly lifted from 1osea ##:#. 2ut a &uick

look at the passage will show that it has nothing to do with a future event:

1osea ##:#*)

<) raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p?F<+ Miller0 Born Divine: p##<

E<



,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!.

E?



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

Macco!y0 .evolution in Judea: p<F

Miller0 Born Divine: p#EF*#E#

E(



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

such a similar use in Josephus *nti@uities.

?) simov0 -uide to the Bible: p7)<*7)?

EE



nti&uities of the Jews (:+:)

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*<<#

ary 'cullard0 * !istory of .o%e: p?+F

Krice0 The ncredible Shrin+ing Son of Man: p?#

E7



c. +*) 2@ G

# 2@ to c. 9 @ ;auis aesar

9*< @ L. olusius 'aturninus

? @ Q after ( @ K. 'ulpicius Cuirinius

Ta!le ##.+ The ;overnors of 'yria 2etween )+ 2@ to ( @

?(

There are only two 4!lanks5 in the list of governors !etween )+ 2@ to ( @ once

!etween #+*## 2@ and another time !etween +*) 2@. The latter gap is of no

conse&uence since !y then 1erod was already dead.?E

Cuirinius career is relatively well documented in our primary sources. Tacitus

*nnals of %perial .o%e 6+:))*)+0 +:9E80 'uetonius Tiberius 69780 'tra!o -eography

6#):?:<8 and Josephus *nti@uities of the Jews 6#(:#+:<0 #E:#:#8 all mentioned some

aspects of his career. >rom these we know that he was !orn sometime !efore <F 2@

and that he died in )) @. ,e know that he was already consul of Bome !y #) 2@.

1e was in sia Minor !etween #) Q ? 2@ where he fought the war against the

1omonadenses. 1e was the governor of Kamphylia*;alatia !etween ? to # 2@. 1e

was serving as the adviser for ;auis aesar for several years !efore 9 @. Josephus

mentioned Cuirinius several times when he !ecame governor of 'yria in ? @

6nti&uities #(:#+:<0 #E:#:#8. 'o we read of Cuirinius career spanning )F years from

#) 2@ to ? @0 yet not once was he mentioned as taking over the governorship of

'yria at an earlier date.?7

These details tell us that Cuirinius could not have !een governor during the

years we have 4gaps5 in the list of the Boman governors of 'yria in #+*## 2@ he

was consul of Bome0 while the years +*) 2@ were spent as governor of Kamphylia*;alatia.

To summari%e0 no historical record supports a Boman census in Judea earlier

than ? @. nd there is a!solutely no possi!ility of Cuirinius !eing the governor of

'yria during the reign of 1erod the ;reat. Luke has presented two events 61erod and

the census8 as though they were historically simultaneous when they were not.

Lukes attempt at creating verisimilitude for his fictional account fails.

?( dapted from 2rown0 The Birth of the Messiah: p<<F68 2rown0 The Birth of the Messiah: p<<F

aird0 Saint Lu+e: p)E

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#FF*#F#?7 2rown0 The Birth of the Messiah: p<<F

,hite0 3ro% Jesus to "hristianity: p++*+9

7F



THE /ATE O8 5ESS 0IRTH

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

70 simov0 ;uide to the 2i!le: p7+(

simov0 2ook of >acts: p+()*+(+

2rown0 The Birth of the Messiah: p#??*#?(

raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p99

>reed0 The Stories of Jesus= Birth: p##E

;uigne!ert0 Jesus: p#F+

Miller0 Born Divine: p#(7

7#



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+)

simov0 Boo+ of 3acts: p+(F

raveri0 The Life of Jesus: p9(

"eller0 The Bible *s !istory: p++E

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

7+



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##

79



Luke #:+F

4Dont !e afraid0 Mary5

Daniel #F:#)

4Dont !e afraid0 Daniel5

•

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.

E+ISO/ES IN THE

NATIVITYGOS+EL VERSES OL/ TESTAMENT +ASSAGES

E# Miller0 Born Divine: p99*<+

>reed0 The Stories of Jesus= Birth: p#<<*#(F

,arner0 *lone of *ll !er Se,: p#)*#+E) uppitt rmstrong0 <ho <as Jesus: p9<

7<





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

;raham0 The Jesus !oa,: p#7<

Miller0 Born Divine: p?<*?(

'chonfield0 The 4assover 4lot : p)9

7(





changing 4,hen his fa%ily heard a!out this5 in Mark +:)# to 4,hen the scholars and

others heard this5.E7

The &uestion here is o!vious: why did Mary try to stop Jesus when he started

preachingG Didnt she consent to an angel to !e the virgin mother of the 4son of the

most high5G ,asnt it her who sang the Magnificat and said that 4all generations will

call me !lessed5 !ecause she will !e the mother of JesusG $nly one answer is

possi!le0 the historical Mary0 who had at least seven children0 knew nothing of the

angels0 the virgin !irth0 her perpetual virginity0 the slaughter of the innocents0 the visit

of the wise men and the star of 2ethlehem !ecause these events never happened

In short0 nothing is known a!out Jesus !efore his pu!lic ministry at 6pro!a!ly8

around thirty years of age. ll references to him prior to this are legends without any

historical foundation.

Documents

Chap11-The Nativity