(20 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...Here I continue my reflections on the birth narratives in the New Testament, with a post on an important aspect of Matthew’s account, central to its claims.
One of the most distinctive aspects of Matthew’s infancy narrative is his insistence that everything that happened was a “fulfillment” of Scripture.
- Why was Jesus’ mother a virgin? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Isaiah 7:14: “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son”)
- Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: “And you, Bethlehem…from you shall come a ruler”
- Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt I have called my son”)
- Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation”)
- Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes … well what does he quote, exactly? “He will be called a Nazorean.” Huh?)
These so-called “fulfillment citations” are found in Matthew and only in Matthew. It is clear that Matthew wants to see Jesus as the fulfillment of what the Old Testament prophets of had said about the messiah. Jesus’ coming into the world was all part of the divine plan. This is clear from the opening verses of the Gospel as well, where Matthew gives his genealogy of Jesus. I’ll say something more about it in a subsequent post. For now, it is striking that according to Matthew, Jesus’ (well, his “father” Joseph’s) genealogy falls into a divinely inspired pattern. From the father of the Jews Abraham to the greatest king of Israel, David, there were fourteen generations; from David to the greatest disaster in Israel, the Babylonian Captivity, were fourteen generations; and from the Babylonian Captivity to the messiah Jesus was fourteen generations. Something BIG happens every fourteen generations. Jesus’ coming into the world is all according to plan.
It is not always appreciated that…
To see what happens next, you need to belong to the blog. Joining is fast, easy, and cheap: less than 50 cents/week (every cent of which goes to charity). For that you get five posts, each and every week, going back over six years. So why not? Treat yourself! Tis the season!
Is the historical Jesus the real Jesus, or Jesus as he really was?
Depends what all these words mean to you. Normally the “historical Jesus” is the term to refer to the Jesus as he actually was in history (what he really said, did, and experienced).
Am I right in thinking this was a common form of hermeneutics – to look back at the Scriptures and find new meanings applicable to their present situations that the original authors would’ve been unaware of?
Yup!
“Matthew, of course, did not read Isaiah in Hebrew but in Greek…”
Could someone explain this statement?
Confused.
Thanks!
Most Jews then, as now, could not read Hebrew, and so read the Bible in the available translation (in the language they spoke). Greek was the most widespread language of the day.
“… he will be eating curds and honey (that is, there will be prosperity in the land) …”
Honey I get. Everybody likes honey. But curds? Who likes curds? My grandmother used to make us eat cottage cheese when I was a toddler, and I’ve hated it ever since! I would rather translate חמאה as ‘butter’ or perhaps some specific kind of cheese, like Emmentaler or cheddar and horseradish.
Or maybe that is part of learning to distinguish right from wrong . Honey is good. Curds are bad!
Ah, you clearly don’t live in the 19th century!
“Ah, you clearly don’t live in the 19th century!”
Yeah, well, I’m old, but not that old.
With Matthew being written before Luke, is it likely that Matthew’s message of a virgin birth in Bethlehem had circulated and that’s the reason Luke includes a virgin birth in Bethlehem?
It’s possible. It’s generally seen as more like, though, that there was a general undersanding of the virgin birth that both Matthew and Luke had heard of?
Good post. I have spent considerable time studying these prophecies and it was always difficult to know to whom these prophecies were referring since the word “Messiah” is never mentioned and the references are to pronouns or common nouns (son).
Are you saying at the time of composition of the Septuagint, the word PARTHENOS mean only “young maiden”, but by 1st century CE, it meant exclusively “a virgin & young maiden”? Or are you saying in the 1st century, it still meant “young maiden” but with a common but not exclusive connotation that it refers to a virgin? In the first case, Matthew would have read the word in the only sense available to him; in the second case, he opted for the virgin meaning to suit his theology, but he was not forced to take this meaning by the text.
I haven’t checked all the primary sources, but my sense is that originally the word did not necessarily connote “woman who never had had sex” but simply “maiden” or “girl” (already in Homer), and sometimes was in fact used of women who had already had sex (again, in Homer). Eventually it came to mean girl, woman, or even man who had never had intercourse. I don’t know when the transition occurred, but it comes to be the meaning of the world in Christian circles.
Bart, is there any record (from the early centuries) of anyone (Jew or Gentile) questioning or challenging Matthews interpretation of Old Testament scripture in relation to the messiah?
Not among Christians, that I’m aware of. There were debates between Christians and Jews, as in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho; and some pagans picked up on these debates.
I’m not inclined to be “generous” in judging Matthew’s use of the “prophecies.” He clearly monkeyed with the genealogy to get the 14 generations pattern (and even then he got the count wrong). The passages are lifted entirely out of context. Later he does it again when he has Jesus ride two donkeys into Jerusalem because he thinks that’s what the passage in Zechariah means. But he was only the first of many; I have seen lists of all the “prophecies” of Jesus in the Old Testament, but none of them are specific and are generally out of context and are unrelated to a future messiah. They are trying too hard, and in my mind it damages their argument.
If the “ fullfilment citations” are specific for Matthew and his reason for puting Jesus’s place of birth to Bethlehem was to show that Jesus fullfils what was predicted what was Luke’s motif to put his place of birth to Bethlehem as well? Was it the same and he just did not use the “ fullfilment citations” or any other reasons? Thanks
My sense is that this is underlying Luke’s account as well, even though it is not made explicit.
There’s also the “suffering servant” in Isa. 53, which is what Paul is referring to in his “fulfillment of the Scriptures” several times. This notwithstanding that Isaiah’s use of “servant” means all of Israel, as in “my servant Jacob” and that he describes the servant’s suffering in the past tense. Also the servant will have offspring and long (but not eternal) life.
Missionaries to the Jews still somehow think the suffering servant is their best argument for converting us. “Isaiah 53 is unquestionably our most powerful biblical tool for Jewish evangelism. . . .” (Mitch Glaser, writing in The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology, 2012). Some people never learn.
Thank you for an interesting blog post. I have a couple of questions:
1. Do you think the tradition of the virgin birth arose because of the prophecy in Isaiah, or did the tradition develop independently, and then the prophetic passage was applied to it? What about the tradition of the birth in Betlehem?
2. You note that the fulfillment citations are found only in Matthew. Do you think that even though there are no such citations in Luke, he would have seen Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies, at least in the places where he agrees with Matthew (Micah 5:1 and the birth in Betlehem; Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin birth, which seems to be echoed in Luke 1:31)?
1. I think it’s very hard to say. There may have been a contributing factor in rumors about Jesus’ unusual (out of wedlock?) birth, that led Christians to come up with an alternative explanation; 2. Yes, I think Luke too saw Jesus as fulfilling prophecy, even though he doesn’t make an explicit case in each instance, as Matthew does. More subtle.
Just to expand a bit on “alma.” It’s the female equivalent of “elem”, young man, and it is strictly a chronological designation – a person probably in late teens to early twenties.The RSV and the NRSV translate “alma” as “young woman,” but the NAB (a Catholic translation) continues to use “virgin” and adds a footnote saying the word means “a young, unmarried woman” – which is not correct; “alma” says nothing about her marital status.
By the way, Jerome claims Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew, but “as we have it in our language [in nostro sermone] it is marked by discrepancies” and so he used the Greek version. I don’t see how we can accept that, since Matthew makes too much of a point about Mary being a virgin, and if he knew Hebrew he would have known ‘alma didn’t mean that. (Unless perhaps its meaning had changed since Isaiah, do you think?)
Yes, I think Matthew did not know Hebrew at all and in the end was confused by the Greek.
If Matthew did not know Hebrew, how do you explain the times where his citations of the OT align more with the MT than the LXX, e.g. Matthew 2:15/Hosea 11:1?
Matthew 2:15
…This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’
Hosea 11:1 (MT from the JPS Tanakh)
11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Hosea 11:1 (LXX)
…For Israel was an infant, and I loved him, and out of Egypt I recalled his children.
The main problem is that we don’t know exactly what his Greek texts of the Bible were; we can’t assume they were exactly like those modern scholars have reconstructed and called “the” Septuagint.
Why should we posit the existence of a theoretical Greek text which agrees with the Hebrew reading rather than concluding that the Hebrew text was Matthew’s source?
Only because we know there were various versions of the Greek floating around, some closer to the Hebrew than others, and Matthew shows no definitive indication that he could actually read Hebrew. Most of his citations are clearly from the Greek, which would be odd if he was basing his understanding on the Hebrew text.
Another off topic question: I just finished reading Paula Fredrikson’s When Christians Were Jews. It is very interesting and sometimes in sync with your positions and sometimes not. ( I recommend it to readers of the blog; that’s where I found out about it a couple of weeks ago.) Fredrikson says that Luke/Acts was probably written in the early second century, using the date 110 C.E. several times. When she puts all her pieces together her case seems pretty convincing. However, my impression is that most scholars would date those books earlier than that. What is your opinion? thanks.
I’m open to the idea, but I’ve never found the arguments completely convincing.
Just finished reading that as well, and enjoyed it.
The birth stories of Jesus are often heart-warming (well, aside from things like the Slaughter of the Innocents). Due to their serious historical and contradiction problems, they are now just a fond memory to me. But it’s understandable how hard it is for some people to let go of them as historical events.
Bart, is there any evidence that Old Testament “prophecies” (the ones you mention here or others) were altered by scribes after the writing of the New Testament to make them seem more like prophecies? Thanks!
Good question! But no, not to my knowledge.
Do you think Matthew was attempting to impress his audience with all these fulfillments? ( Wow, Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies so he must be the real deal.) I know Christians reference all of these prophecies as so amazing, but I’m wondering if that was actually Matthew’s intent
I don’t think we have any access to what was actually going on in his mind, but it sure seems to be what he was trying to achieve, yes.
Matthew seems to have gone through the scriptures and picked up *anything* that could be turned into a prophecy to put into his narrative.
Faith is truly an amazing psychological phenomenon when it allows billions of people to disregard these historic facts in favor of the Sunday School myths taught in their youth.
What do you think of the argument that the book of Luke is based on an older, more reliable form of Mark than the one we have now? Do you agree?
I think it’s unlikely that Luke’s Mark was *exactly* like the one we have, though it was probably pretty close. It would have been an earier version probably; I don’t think there’s any way to know jsut how it varied, though, or whether it was more accurate.
My wife and I travelled to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre last summer. Is it exactly on the spot of Golgotha? Or had Constantine’s mother guessed?
She wasn’t the one who “discovered” it (that was a later legend). Constantine’s people themselves did. But they were guessing.
Of the 4 gospels Matthew seems the one to most care that Jesus fulfills old testament prophecies. He’s the one that most cares that Jesus is a son of David; the only one concerned with the “law”; mentioning it at least a dozen times – Mark never mentioning it.
Given that we know christianity started as a small Jewish sect before moving to the gentiles and leaving behind its Jewish ruits – doesnt it make more sense historically to put Matthew as the first gospel to be written and Mark an editor making it more palatable to the religions new gentile converts?
There are other compelling reasons for thinking Matthew used Mark, rather than the other way around, so I’m afraid this solution just doesn’t work. (It’s not clear that Matthew is written for Jews, in either event)
Its not so much a solution as just a piece of evidence pointing towards matthean priority.
There are then two types of historical evidence for matthew being first – the testimony of church father’s and a chronological ordering of gospels based on the movement of the church for a jewish religion to a gentile one. Both of which favour matthew.
the internal evidence favouring mark would then have to be strong enough to overcome two types of historical evidence against.
You may want to look into the arguments for Markan priority. They are very, very strong.
I’ve tried to but just don’t see why its so convincing for people.
The internal evidence for Matthean priority always seems to be ignored.
Scholars don’t ignore it at all. There are entire books written on it. But when evaluated, the arguments are much weaker — in the almost universal opinion — than for Markan priority. The opinion may be wrong, of course; but it’s not because the arguments are ignored.
Do you think luke 2:19 “Mary treasured these things in her heart” is suggesting that Mary is the source for the nativity stories?
I don’t think she was *really* the source, no. Does Luke want us to *think* she was? Hard to say. It might just mean that she didn’t spread around the stories about his unusual birth at the time, which would be why no one heard of such things until much later….
I have read on the blog your criteria for being recognised as a scholar and these always include study at PhD level. I also believe I have read here that there is a difference between a PhD from a US university and one from the UK which, I think you have said, focuses more on the student’s research rather than a strong element of teaching and training. If my understanding of what you have said is correct do you think that the UK system produces the same degree of rigourous scholarship?
Yes, some of the best scholars in the world come out of the UK system, absolutely. But it is a very different approach to graduate training. In simple terms, “breadth” is acquired more on the basis of one’s own curiosity, drive, and initiative than on the basis of seminars and exams taken.
In this post you say, “Isaiah 7:14, (which) in its original context does not say that “a virgin will conceive and bear a son” but instead “a young woman is with child and will bear a son.”
Translations which I have read do indeed put this statement in the future tense (viz ‘WILL conceive’). Therefore do you believe that this is a mistranslation of the tense or do you arrive at ‘a young woman IS with child’ from the wider context and its historical setting? Thanks
Yes, it’s a mistranslation. The verb “conceive” is in the perfect (= completed) sense (already accomplished) whereas the verb “bear” is in the imperfect (= not yet completed) sense (yet to be accomplished). So it means she *has* conceived and *will* bear a son.
When you say that in Isa 7:14 this is a mistranslation because ‘conceive’ is in the perfect tense are you referring to the original Hebrew or the Greek of the Septuagint, please? Is not ‘εν γαστρι εξει’, in Isa and then in Matt 1:23, the future tense?
I”m referring to the Hebrew verb tenses.
Further to my query re Isa 7:14 (if I may please). Why do you think that the tense re conceiving was changed from (Hebrew) perfect to (Greek) future? If, as I understand it, the Septuagint was a BCE composition it could not have been written to satisfy Christian apologists eager to claim the prediction of Jesus’ virgin birth. Therefore why would this conception not have been seen in the historical context which you have explained and thus referred to as a current rather than a future event?
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect it’s because of the earlier part of the verse, the Lord “will give” a sign; the translators were probably keeping the tenses straight, not realizing that the (future) sign was not the conception but the birth.
I’m sure you’ve answered this before, but are there any instances of the Nativity story subsequent to Matthew and Luke that have any significant differences from them? Or does everyone appear to have used M or L as a source?
Yes, stories such as found in the Proto-Gospel of James and Pseudo-Matthew have significant differences, that impacted understandings of the nativity over the centuries.
Speaking of how the word “fulfill” is used in Matthew’s gospel, how are we to understand it’s usage when the term (assume it’s the same Greek word) is used later in Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says he has not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them?
He appears to mean that he will do everything required of the messiah, including keeping the law but also fulfilling the prophecies.
I like to put complex ideas into simpler versions. How do I combine the myths of Jesus’ birth with the history of the man?
It’s like any public figure, really. Lots of legendary accounts connected with, say, Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln; the historian’s task is to figure out both what’s been added/changed and what is basically reliable.
I’m trying to put together a Christmas Pageant that is neither serious nor silly. I’m afraid the youngest generation won’t get any of it because of its lack of historicity. Suggestions?
Not really — it completely depends on your audience. But I would suggest that you not replicate the account in the Life of Brian!
Dr. Ehrman, I may have a more general, albeit on topic question. It´s an old news 🙂 that NT is littered with corrupted quotations of the OT. Christian Bibles evade it by saying that at the time of NT composition, the NT canon was only forming, however Jewish authors and Hebrew Bibles are more critical and charge NT authors with intentional manipulation and deceit of the OT text to promote their agenda contrary to blatantly clear original message. What is your view, prefessor? Were these (sometimes even grotesque) “mistakes” of the NT writers sincere, done in good faith, or were these authors more sinnister? Do we have the Septuagint they were using to verify their intentions (given that we don´t have older the Hebrew originals than Dead Sea Scrolls), is it possible that Church fathers “covered” for the NT writers in later Septuagint translations?
I don’t knw of too many charges by Jews that Christians corrupted their texts, though it is a clear charge by Trypho against Justin. My sense is taht the CHristians were simply quoting the text available to them, and it was different from that known to some of their Jewish opponents, in part becasue it was from the Greek translation but also because there were *various* Greek translations in circulation.
Thank you professor, so you´re saying that the one and only Word from the Lord was different back then? 🙂 I was pointed out to Luke 4:18 which “changes” Isaiah 61:1 by adding “… and recovery of sight to the blind.” Now this isn´t a “mistranslation” of Isaiah 7:14 as in Matthew 1:23, but to me it sounds rather as a subtle hint to Jesus´divinity (see Ex 4:11), which makes sense overal, plus Jesus is said to read it from “the scroll” (i.e. not from Septuagint). It would also explain the obvious discrepancy, as we do have a complete Isaiah scroll form Qumran pre-dating NT, which, I suppose, doesn´t contain the passage either. Could this be an example of the NT authors being disingenuous?
I”d say the very big and insurmountable problem is that we don’t have access to the OT texts they are quoting: that is, there were various manuscripts available in different parts of the world, among both Jews and CHristians, and we don’t have any of them to see how well the authors are quoting them. Also people often (all the time, in fact!) quote a text incorrectly without realizing it. So I would have to see some kind of evidence of disingenuity I think, rather than assume it….
Thank you so much professor. So much to the claim that Dead Sea Scrolls proved how meticulous ancient Jewisch scribes were and how reliable the OT text we now have is 🙂 To me, as an atheist, it means one less argument to “buy” the whole Christian faith, since if the NT authors couldn´t reliably (or “the Spirit” was careless to make sure to) transmit the Word of the Lord, THE WORD OF THE LORD!!! they had access to, how can we believe that they reliably transmitted the word of Jesus… based on a hearsay… some forty years later… in a different language…