With the passing of Thanksgiving, Christmas season has now officially arrived (whether that brings you joy, despair, or indifference!). Here is a post that I made exactly four years, prompted in part by my decision to publish an edition of “other” Gospels (that did not make it into the New Testament, including some that deal with the birth of Jesus.
******************************************************
Right now I have the “other” Gospels on my mind. It’s true, I often have them on my mind, since they have been a focus for a good deal of my research over the past few years, and will continue to be for some years to come. But just now, they are particularly on my mind even though the book I’m currently writing (How Jesus Became God) is about something else.
They’re on my mind for three reasons. First, I’ve agreed with Oxford Press, to produce, along with my colleague Zlatko Plese, an English-only edition of The Apocryphal Gospels, which came out in a Greek/Latin/Coptic-English edition last year; this new edition will include only the English translations with new introductions geared for a general audience. So I have to rewrite all the introductions, and the am bound by contract to do it by the end of January.
Second, I have agreed to write a brief (2000-word) article for Newsweek this week, to be published in a couple of weeks, about the birth of Jesus, and this has made me think about the other Gospels (from outside the New Testament) that tell alternative accounts of Jesus’ birth and young life. And third, just as I was about ready to start writing the article I learned that the Pope has published a book on the birth of Jesus, where he, among other things, dispels many of the myths that people subscribe to about the Christmas story.
I have just gotten my copy today and will read it, hopefully, tonight. But it is clear at first glance that among other things the Pope wants to affirm many of the things that scholars have long known about the popular beliefs about Christmas.
- We don’t know what year Jesus was born. (It will be interesting to see if the Pope suggests a particular year.) None of the Gospels says. According to Luke (and only Luke) Jesus was “about thirty years old” when he began his ministry. According to John (and only John) the ministry lasted between two and a half and three and a half years. And according to all the Gospels he died during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. We know from other sources that Pilate was governor between 26-36 CE. So if (a BIG if: it’s not clear that either Luke or John really had biographically reliable data available to them on these matters) Jesus was 33, then he had to be born somewhere between 7 BCE and 3 CE. But if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are right that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod then he would have had to be born by at least 4 BCE, since that is when Herod died. And so most historians indicate that Jesus was born in 4 BCE or so, which of course creates a nice irony, since it means that Jesus was born 4 years Before Christ. (!)
- The reason the calendars we use are wrong is because …FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!
As many will probably ask: *Did* the Pope’s book include anything that surprised you?
And are you going to share your Newsweek article with us? I think I remember your having done so before.
Not really! And thanks for your prompt! See today’s post.
Given Luke’s story that Mary was pregnant with Jesus before she was married and not by Joseph, Christians must have been terribly embarrassed when this was brought up. Their Messiah was an illegitimate child who as an adult was crucified as a criminal. Paul mentions the fact Jesus was born of a woman but not that he was said to be illegitimate. Is there any indication Paul was aware of the nativity story that eventually made it into Luke’s Gospel? Do you think Luke was replying to rumors about Jesus’ paternity or perhaps asserting his divinity in a way a Roman reader might understand?
No, nothing to suggest Paul knew any stories about Jesus’ birth. Rumors: I think that’s entirely possible.
To what degree, if any, are the stories of Jesus’s virgin birth evidence that he was actually illegitimate? Or were these stories primarily intended to serve other purposes?
That’s a great question. I think I’ll devote a couple of posts to it!
Just occurred to me that, since she was married and was impregnated by another, Jesus was illegitimate, God or no God, and God committed adultery. No?
Somehow I don’t think that would make it into the Christian creeds….
Mr. Ehrman. I’ll share a peculiar way to look at these texts – Indeed peculiar (and nothing more than that).
First of all, the star may actually be a reference to Baalam’s prophecy: “there shall come a Star out of Jacob” – Numbers 24:17. This is not so peculiar, but the next is.
In 2 Samuel 24 we find a story of a census of Israel, but there’s also this weird story of an angel striking down the people of Israel and not stopping before the angel stood at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Could this angel be the star?
Rev. 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
In 2 Chronicles 3:1 we see that the threshing floor of Araunah was where Solomon built his temple, and that the threshing floor was on Mount Moriah where God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
2 Chronicles 3:1 “Then Solomon began to build the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to his father David. It was on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, the place provided by David”.
Indeed peculiar…
Dr. Ehrman, what do you think it says about us as human beings that the most manifestly fabricated part of the gospel accounts — the Christmas narrative — is the source of the most popular holiday in Christianity? Not to mention Santa Claus, Christmas trees, Rudolf, mistletoe, and yule logs.
I’d say that it indicates we love a good story. Good luck with your novel!!
Thank you! (I’m assuming you’re not being sarcastic, lol)
Regarding ways to expand the blog , note or promote it as part of agreeing to write/appear when you appear in print, radio or tv.
You could write a great novel that would be widely received on the 50 years after Christ death ( who likely wrote and rewrote the New Testament)
The potential market is enormous as most Christians are secretly skeptical of the typical church teachings.
Interesting facts and another minor reason to question the historicity of Jesus. Obviously, the Gospel writers were clueless about Jesus’ birth date and place. But they did have an agenda: prophesy fulfilment.
By making him – through convoluted and contradictory means – born in Bethlehem he got Davidic credentials as per OT requirements, (and maybe Pauline requirements as per Romans 1:3).
As usual, Paul is of no help and says nothing about where or when his Jesus was born. He does however in Galatians 4:4 use the term “born of a woman”. The Greek verb translated as born is “ginomai” which has a broader meaning of “to become, to arise, to occur, to come into existence, to be created”.
Of course, in the context of a historical Jesus the phrase “born of a woman” is ridiculously redundant and suspect on that basis alone.
Bart, Academics and research scholars are above narrow vision.Would you think to search Quran and write about Jesus quouting from there as well.This will be a unique and eye opening for many of your readers.
I try to stick to the areas of scholarship I am an expert in. I certainly *could* try to become an expert in Islam. But then again, I could try to become an expert in Buddhism, Hinduism, Confusionism, Shinto, Taoism, Native American religions, American religions, Medieval Judaism, or … hundreds of other things!
As someone who has been deep into ancient Chinese philosophy for the past few months (mainly Confucianism and Daoism, but some Mohism as well), all I can say is everyone on earth, of all religions and nationalities, would benefit greatly by learning about all philosophies, all religions and all cultural histories, from West, from East, from North, from South, from cities to countrysides, from mountains to deserts, from modern industrial to primitive hunter-gatherer societies. There are certain human universals that only become apparent when we take in all of humanity as a whole, when we step back and see all the common elements, common values, common stories we all share. Why stop at just the Bible or Qur’an? Why not go onto the Mahabharata, or the Upanishads, or the Avesta, or Dhammapada, or the Analects, or the Dao De Jing? Maybe we should ALL be more open to more views.
Talmoore,Yes you are so right.I believe in what you said.I started studying different faiths when I found in Quran God’s claim that he sent prophet to all the people ,Quran says over 124,000 in total,but only 25 are written by name.Because to write in Quran then about far flung areas which the people never had heard would have confused them more.But sure enough every religion book that you study you will find in it few things common,Worship One God without any partners,compromise,(because if this is done then it is a strong ground for whole humanity to believe and behave as one family and thus the brotherhood)Second All books talks about same principle that the last book says i.e.Quran and all divine books have Prophet Muhammad’s coming mentioned(including the books you named of HIndu and Bhudhist faith)If you have time watch peacetv.tv and talks about common ground between all the faiths according to what is written in them not what is being followed and practiced due to deviation today.But we should be positive.Thank You.But we have to make a start from somewhere,first between the Abrahamic faiths then outwards.If you start such a blog please let me know.It will become very popular.
What is (are) the “true meaning/spirit of Christmas” in the Jesus birth narratives of Luke and Matthew? Based on your books I’m thinking it’s that the messiah was born and that he was born in Bethlehem rather than in Nazareth.
Would you say that the “original intent” of Luke and Matthew overlaps to any great degree with any of the contemporary ideas about the meaning of Christmas – excluding the purely commercial and acquisitive. It seems to me that the theme of hope connects with the birth of the messiah (compared to the theme of triumph at Easter), the image of a new-born baby, and the return of more daylight right after the shortest day of the year at the start of the barrenness of winter.
Yes, I would say that is the main point of both narratives. My sense is that modern people have a variety of ideas about what it all means.
I think what I am going to have to do Dr. Ehrman is reread several of your books now that I have a better overview. I read Misquoting Jesus long before I read the others and lacked a now better understood context. And I think I’m going to start my reread with Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet first or which one would you suggest. I now own most of your kindle editions.
Was Micah 5:2 seen as messianic by some Jews before Jesus’ birth? It seems Matt and Luke have independent sources for their nativity stories, but they have Bethelhem in common. I know most scholars believe Jesus was born in Nazareth, but I’m wondering if there’s any scholarly reason to think he possibly was born in Bethlehem (maybe for a local census or a temple dedication or something like that)?
I don’t think so; everyone seems to know he came from Nazareth, and it is hard to imagine a scenario to take his prospective parents so far away to another village (in a compltely *different* locale). The stories about Bethlehem seem theologically motivated.
Do you think the theological reason was due to a pre-existing view (before Jesus) that the messiah would come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)—or was that view made messianic (after Jesus) like Isaiah 53 was?
I don’t really know!
Interesting… it seems like in your view Micah 5:2 *might* be the only legit OT prediction (applied in NT to Jesus) about the messiah that a significant number of Second Temple Jews might have really been looking for… is that right or are the others?
I ask because it seems like in your view all the other ones (e.g. Is. 7:14, Is. 53, Ps. 16:10, Ps. 22, etc.) were applied after the fact and don’t represent what any Second Temple Jews would have expected from their coming messiah (I understand Micah 5:2 is not saying much if Jesus was born in Nazareth, but I’m not asking that… I’m asking if Jews of Jesus’ time saw any other OT prophecies (apart from possibly Micah’s) that the NT applies to Jesus as applying to their messiah (I know they didn’t expect him to die and rise… but I’m looking for your view on OT references that did refer to both the messiah and to Jesus in Jews’ 1st century view).
I don’t think we have any record of Jews consulting their Bibles to see which among them could be the messiah. But maybe someone can correct me.
I searched Amazon for the title of the Pope’s book (I wasn’t sure if I was looking for Francis or Benedict — time flies when you’re retired!) and found that it’s the last of a Jesus of Nazareth trilogy. Have you read all three? Are they worth reading, from an historical perspective, in your opinion?
No, just that one. And no, it’s not a historical analysis.
Are there any recommended books on the possible origins of Christmas?
I’m drawing a blank. Maybe others have a suggestion?