Loading...Here I continue my seasonal reflections about the Christmas accounts in the New Testament.
Yesterday’s blog was about the account of Jesus’ birth in Luke; today I talk about Matthew. Even a casual reading shows that these are two very different accounts. Matthew has nothing about the birth of John the Baptist, the Annunciation, the census, the trip to Bethlehem, the shepherds, the presentation in the Temple. Matthew’s version, as a result, is much shorter. Most of his stories are found only in his account. And some of the differences from Luke appear to involve downright discrepancies, as I will try to show in another post.
For now: Matthew’s version. Matthew begins with a genealogy of Jesus. Luke also has a genealogy, but it is given after Jesus is baptized in ch. 3, instead of where you would expect it, at his birth in ch. 1. I’ll explain my view of that in a later post. After the genealogy of Matthew in which Jesus is traced to David, the greatest king of Israel, and to Abraham, the father of Israel, we move right to the birth story.
Mary has conceived by the Holy Spirit; Joseph wants to divorce her quietly; he learns from an angel in a dream that she has conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that it has all been in order to fulfill the prophecy of Isa. 7:14, which Matthew quotes as saying “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” They don’t actually call him Emmanuel, of course (a Hebrew term that means “God is with us”) but Jesus (which means “salvation.”)
All of that is in ch. 1. Ch. 2 is mainly about the coming of the wise men and what happens in their wake. The wise men have come from the east, following a star, to find the place where the new King of the Jews has been born so they can worship him. Why anyone would want to …
To see the rest of this post, you will need to be a blog member. Joining has never been easier (OK, or harder). It costs little, gives a lot, and provides funds (your entire fee!) to charity. So why not? Hey, it’s the season. Treat yourself!
You have previously postulated a “Four Source Hypothesis” for the Matthean and Lukan gospels. Would it be accurate to say that the Nativity stories are from the “M” and “L” sources? Mark is obviously out, and the narratives too dissimilar for “Q”. Are the M and L sources individuals or several differing oral traditions?
Yes, that’s right: they are M and L. But M and L could represent a single written source, multiple written sources (each), multiple oral sources — we don’t know, except to say that each comprises material unique to Matthew and Luke, respectively.
Dr. Ehrman, you mention multiple written sources and multiple oral sources. You’ve stated before that it began with the oral traditions. I suppose you see the oral sources evolving over time. Do you believe that the first people who began telling stories about Jesus were his disciples, or, perhaps people who knew him or his disciples? And, do you believe that those stories/anecdotes became more legendary/mythical as the years went by? I’m curious if you believe that people close to him were the first to get the ball rolling.
His disciples and other followers. I give a full account in my book Jesus Before the Gospels.
In Matthew, the NRSV states that Mary was engaged to Joseph and after finding out Mary is pregnant, Joseph was going to quietly dismiss her.
1. Does engaged mean that Joseph has paid Mary’s father money but Joseph and Mary are not together yet?
2. Does dismiss her mean to break off the engagement and get his money back?
3. Is your thought that Joseph got Mary pregnant after they were married and they lived in Nazareth the entire time?
(I ask the third question because I have read that some scholars think that Mary was pregnant before her and Joseph were married due to the reference in John 8:41 where the Jews state “We are not illegitimate children” meaning that Jesus is an illegitimate child.)
1. We don’t know; 2. We don’t know. The texts say nothing about a financial arrangment. 3. I don’t know what happened!
Completely unrelated question:
1. Is there any evidence that 1 Corinthians 7 might have been modified by scribes or are virtually all scholars unified in that what we now have was probably written by Paul with no evidence of scribal modification?
2. How can Paul write in verse 13 that a woman should not divorce a man? Wasn’t it so that in Jewish society only a man could divorce a woman (in most cases)? Since Paul is writing to Gentile believers – did women in the Roman empire have the right to divorce their husbands?
Thanks in advance.
1. We have no evidence of it being altered by scribes; 2. Paul is writing to Gentiles, not Jews; and yes, it was possible for a woman to divorce a man.
Bart, it’s commonly assumed that Joseph’s family was poor (but not desperately poor), so I wonder what happened to the gold and other gifts that the wise men gave Jesus. Maybe Joseph put the money in a trust for his son, which later came in handy for an itinerant preacher with no visible means of support.
Ha! That’s probably it!
Magic beans. Tradied it all for magic beans. Joseph threw the beans out the window, and lo, giant beanstalk!
Jesus climbed up the beanstalk, but all he found up there was God, and they had a talk.
He climbs back down, and Joseph’s like “Where’s my golden goose?” And Jesus is like “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt.” Maybe something about lilies and birds too, for good measure.
Joseph gives Jesus a good caning, then climbs up the beanstalk to find those riches stored up in heaven sonny boy was yakking about. Jesus, still rubbing his sore bum, chops it down, and that’s why we never hear from Joseph again.
You have to give it points for logical elegance.
If you combine the accounts of Luke and Matthew, don’t you get a problem with John the Baptist surviving the massacre?
Don’t think so. He’s not from Bethlehem.
Wouldn’t his parents also be of David’s house, and thus travel to Bethlehem to be counted for the census?
No, nothing links his ancestry to David, except to the extent that everyone’s was, in one way or another. Surely not every Jew on earth was heading to Bethlehem!
Shouldn’t they have named Jesus Emmanuel rather than Jesus if Isa. 7:14 was supposed to be a fulfilled prophecy?
Emmanuel is the designation, not the name. Just as elsewhere it is said that “he shall be called Wonderful, Counselor…” Doesn’t mean it’s actually his name.
Herod is typically portrayed as shrewd and ruthless. So, he sends these strangers on their way to find this new king without sending so much as a single soldier with them, who could easily dispatch this rival as soon as he is found. Hard to believe. But Matthew sets this up so he can use the passage from Jeremiah 31:15 as a “prophecy” of the event. However, Matthew should have read a little further: “Thus says the Lord, ‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; For your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘And they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,’ declares the Lord, ‘And your children will return to their own territory.'” Jeremiah’s passage is actually a hopeful one about the children of Israel returning from captivity, so rejoice! By taking it completely out of context Matthew has changed its intent for his own purposes. But then he does that with the other “prophecies” he quotes in the birth story. Matthew’s Biblical exegesis is very suspect.
Yeah, Matthew certainly would not do well in a modern exegesis class; but in his own context he’s pretty good
I vaguely remember a story (from one of the early church fathers?) that also contained a star announcing either the birth or possibly the resurrection? It included details of of a heavenly choir singing as well. Please tell me you know which story I’m referring to! This story has quite a few interesting differences and now I’m wondering if this is merely evidence of the various circulating, but changed, oral traditions?
Not sure what you’re thinking of!
Found it!
Ignatius writes : Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world… and then describes a star that IS Jesus (not an announcement) and doesn’t seem to be Matthew’s story.
Do you think he got this from some “other” gospel or just some alternate oral tradition floating around? I thought it was very interesting as it is quite different from Matthew.
Took me a bit to find this!
I”ve debated back and forth on this. My sense is that he is giving a kind of narrative interpretation of the account in Matthew, but I’m not wedded to the view.
Numbers 24:17 relates “A star shall advance from Jacob…” This was thought to be a Messianic prophecy, the “star” being Jesus. On a different note, actual stars do not appear to move at all (they do, of course, but are light years away, making actual movement imperceptible). However planets in our solar system do visibly move over short periods of time. Modern astronomers interested in this gospel have concluded the “star” was actually Jupiter. Interesting, since the celestial body is named after the chief Greek god!
Is the “Slaughter of the Innocents” mentioned by Josephus or in any other writing of the period? If not, is that significant or just another atrocity lost to history or just a legend? Thank you.
No, it’s not mentioned anywhere but Matthew. My sense is that it’s a legend created to “fulfill scripture” (see today’s post)
I understand that the discrepancies between the different Infancy Narratives poses a problem for historians who wish to use them as a source of information about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. From what I’ve read, it seems to me that the only useful thing the infancy narratives can offer historians is insight into how early and widely attested were certain theological “facts” about Jesus’ birth across Christian communities. Is it fair to say that the theological “facts” the two narratives share in common – Bethlehem, virgin birth, angelic messengers, holy spirit, etc. – indicate that these beliefs were early and widespread across very different Christian communities?
Also, the different way Luke and Matthew shaped these “facts” into a narrative seems to say something significant about the nature of the two communities they address in particular. Luke clearly thinks it is a brilliant plan to shape these “theological facts” in to a narrative that not only makes Zechariah (old, male, priest, punished) a lesser foil of Mary (young, female, virgin, encouraged), but also puts into Mary’s mouth the words, “…generations will call ME blessed”, which is not something Zachariah gets to say. Can we safely assume that Luke’s community nodded their heads in agreement at his portrayal of Mary? What about Matthew’s community? Matthew doesn’t bother to give Mary a single line in his Gospel – and nobody seemed to care.
I hope you’ll address some of those issues in your next posts!
Yes, I think that’s fair to say. Good analysis.
Regarding the genealogies, Professor, I know that scholars frequently point out that the connection with David only made sense if Jesus were presumed to be an actual blood descendant. So why would Matthew and Luke bother? Wouldn’t the discrepancy have been so obvious to everyone that it would weaken rather than support the idea of a Divine Conception and a Virgin Birth? (I’m not sure that I buy into the argument that the Jews, like the Romans, considered an adoptive son to be a full fledged family descendant for all purposes, or that a contemporary audience would even have made that connection). Is it possible, then, that the genealogies had been developed before the idea of a Virgin Birth, and that Matthew and Luke picked them up from some earlier source rather than created them from scratch?
They were in a bind. They had to show Davidic lineage, but also held to the virgin birth. No easy solution to that one!
I wonder how many people who have read Matthew’s account over the years wonder why the “Star of Bethlehem” didn’t lead the wise men directly to Bethlehem, thus avoiding the “Slaughter of the Innocents.” It should be obvious that Matthew thought that fulfillment of “prophecy” was more important than narrative coherence.
I’m one of them who has wondered!
Some of the Jehova’s Witnesses I’ve spoken to think the star was sent by the Devil. I don’t know if that’s an official teaching, though.
Dear Bart, a question unrelated to today’s post.
I understand the arguments for considering six of the letters not to be written by Paul, but why do you think the other seven *are* written by him? I mean, they could also be written (forged) by an unknown person. Maybe he wanted to forge letters in Paul’s name and are Paul’s real letters lost to history? What are the arguments for the consensus that the seven letters are written by the real Paul himself?
Ah, long story. Short answer: the seven appear to cohere in vocabulary, writing style, theological outlook, general overview, historical context, etc., and so all appear to have the same author. Since it claims to be Paul, and since we have good reason for thinking Paul did write letters — unless there’s some compelling reason to suspect otherwise, they are simply thought to be paul’s.
Was there any concern by early church fathers that the genealogy of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke were Joseph’s descendants and not Mary? Concerns about the descendants names being different?
Yes, there was some questioning about how both could be right!
You ask (rhetorically) why anyone would worship a (Jewish) king. No jew would, but a Hellenist might not know that. And no Jew would worship a messiah, either; he is, after all, nothing more than God’s servant (though a very powerful one). The most detailed description I know is in Pss. Sol. 17-18, but there too I see no suggestion that he is to be worshiped, just obeyed.
My question is why anyone would worship a Jewish ruler? It’s kind a like wisemen showing up at the door of Netanyahu….
About 18 months ago I asked you about an ancient document “Eusebius on the star” (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_star.htm) a lengthy account of the three Magi visiting the infant Jesus. I asked if you knew if anyone had subjected the manuscript to multispectral imaging, as some of the final lines of text had been purposely erased. You said you didn’t know.
I did some research and found the manuscript at the British Library and discovered it had never been scanned. I went to London and had a look at the manuscript (it’s beautifully bound in a book – first time I’ve held any ancient text in my shaking hands! It was awesome!!)
I asked their multispectral imaging department if they could scan it and they did. They sent me the results and asked for a translation. I said I couldn’t read ancient Syriac and they appeared quite surprised and cross “we thought you were part of a university research project?!” I explained I was just an enthusiastic novice, but I contacted Prof Sebastian Brock and his successor Prof David Taylor (leading experts on ancient Syriac) at Oxford University and they both had a go at translating the recovered text.
David Taylor said he may write a paper on it, but I didn’t hear if he did. The contents concern a conversation between Joseph and Mary where they agree to marital chastity. Presumably, a married owner of the codex decided that was too much and chemically erased it in case anyone got any bright ideas!!
The most interesting aspect of the text is the final lines where it suggests the tale of the Magi was unknown before 119, and only after was it added to the gospel of Matthew: “and eleven, in the second year of the coming of our Saviour, in the consulship of Caesar and of Capito, in the month of the latter Kanun, these Magi came from the East and worshipped our Lord at Bethlehem of the kings. And in the year four hundred and thirty (A.D. 119), in the reign of Hadrianus Caesar, in the consulship of Severus and of Fulgus, in the episcopate of Xystus, bishop of the city of Rome, this concern arose in (the minds of) men acquainted with the Holy Books; and through the pains of the great men in various places this history was sought for and found, and written in the tongue of those who took this care.”
Interesting. The scholar to ask about such things (rarely known apocrypha) is Tony Burke at York University.
Thanks for the tip, Bart – I’ve emailed Tony Burke. Are you interested in his response? I can let you know what his thoughts are if you like?
Sure!
Is “sorcerer” or “magician,” as the word for “wise men” is translated in Acts 13:6,8 a more accurate term for Jesus’ visitors? Or should Acts 13 be translated differently?
Astrologers would be maybe better.
“Astrologers” would be more accurate in Acts 13, too?
Not necessarily. The word can mean “magician” or other things; it seems to designate astrologer (another of its meanings) in Luke 2 because they whole point is that they are star-observers.
Bart,
Do you have any idea what the population of Bethlehem was in 4 BCE? I am wondering how many children would have actually been killed in the “Slaughter of the Innocents” (if it had happened).
In my imagination as a child, I envisioned hundreds of children killed, but the number might have actually been quite small, maybe small enough not to raise a huge amount of outrage, except locally.
Just a few hundred I should think; but I’m not sure I”ve read any archaeological reports.
I’ve read of archaeological reports suggesting the population was essentially zero, because it wasn’t an extant town at the time.
I’m not aware of that.
When the star stops ‘over the place they were staying’–does that mean it stopped over the very house? Obviously if it’s a literal star in the sky it can’t direct someone to a specific house. Is it possible that the place where they were staying refers to the whole city of Bethlehem? It seems that would defeat the whole purpose of the star, which was to lead them specifically to Jesus. But does the original language lead to any ambiguity of where the star led them?
Yup, that’s what it means. A bit of a problem! As modern film makers have realized, when they have to portray it. (Leading to the most amusing account of the Life of Brian. Whoops. Wrong house.)
Obviously Isaiah’s prophecy refers to a political situation in the 8th century bc. Could someone legitimately argue that Matthew was using a midrash approach to the text, and that therefore there is more than one interpretation? Or can we just say that Matthew was mistaken and didn’t understand Isaiah 7?
Yes, he’s certainly following accepted interpretive practices of his day.
On many levels, this story is about confirming that Jesus is, in fact, the Jewish Messiah, which is to say, the rightful King of the Jews. Who was born to displace the false king, Herod.
We know, of course, how many subsequent stories (many from Hollywood) have mimicked Matthew’s narrative. The idea of a prophesied savior from a tyrant, and the tyrant hears about it, and tries to stop it.
It really screws up the narrative that Herod died before Jesus grew up (or probably even before he was born).
It’s suspiciously convenient that Herod Antipas gets brought into the crucifixion narrative, just to round things out–now real history can be just as contrived-feeling at times, and it’s a clever idea, having Pilate try to get Jesus off his hands, but it doesn’t ring true, based on what we know.
Also, that’s in Luke, so what the hell? Is Luke trying to finish Matthew’s story? (Meaning that Luke read Matthew?) Or is this a complete coincidence, and Luke just has the same basic idea–contrast the true King with the false one?
My sense is that this was a common motif among early Christian story tellers before both Matthew and Luke, and they inherited then shaped it.
Here’s a thought that I have not seen discussed (though I may have missed it). Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled their “home” in Bethlehem because Herod’s wicked son Archelaus was ruling in nearby Jerusalem. For safety they fled to Nazareth, a village near Sepphoris which, at least for a time, was the capital city of Herod’s other son Antipas (of John the Baptist and Salome fame). If they were trying to keep their distance from the Herods, it seems like Nazareth was not a great choice.
Well, not every brother is equally bad, as many can attest!
This is off topic, but very topical! I hope you will weigh in on the matter.
It has been in the news lately that Pope Francis has approved a change in the translation of the Lord’s Prayer. Specifically, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has decided that the phrase “lead us not into temptation” from Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4 is theologically inaccurate. They are not proposing a change to the words in the Greek manuscript, only their interpretation & translation. Even so, this seems to me to be a contemporary example of the very sort of dynamic that would lead to actual changes in the Greek manuscripts in the early centuries of the Church.
In the Kingdom New Testament, N.T. Wright translates Mt 6:13 as “Don’t bring us into the great trial” and Luke 11: 4 as “don’t put us to the test”. I’ve read that the new Catholic translation will be something like “abandon us not when in temptation”. What do you think of these variations?
Thanks!
I think the prayer is asking that God not bring his people to the ultimate test of allegiance when the end of time comes upon them, but let them escape from it. “Please don’t put us to the test.”
One question is hammering me.
Both in Luke and in Matthew, he only quotes Joseph and Mary going to the re-registration at Bethlehem, but the brothers of Jesus, where did they stay?
In neither account does he have brothers at the time.
Does Matthew really use the word “worship” when he mentions the wise men worshiping him? I recall you saying elsewhere that the Greek word used there would be better understood as something akin to kneeling, as people kneel before kings.
That’s what worship is in the ancient context.
In 1:18 et al all the translations I’ve checked invariably seem to have it as “the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)”. This of course raises an immediate doctrinal association with the ‘Third Person of the Trinity’. But the doctrine of the Trinity was centuries away, right, so what is your sense of the actual understanding of the author here? A person? An emanation? Any way to tell?
Thanks!
The doctrine of the trinity emerged fom passages like this. Here it simply means God’s spirit through whom he accomplishes things on earth (as in Genesis 1)
Professor,
Will you also discuss the quote “He will be called a Nazarene.” as there is NO such verse in the old testament correct?
What is the scholarly though on this weird quote, and more curiously are there specific textual variants of it, where perhaps some manuscripts omit it? Or do all known copies of Mathew have it?
Ah, it’s a problem. I’ll see if I posted on it at any time on the blog.
Yes, absolutely! I’ve long understood this story, in which Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem, to conflict with Luke’s story in which they live in Nazareth. After the birth of Jesus in Matthew, Joseph and Mary flee south to Egypt to avoid the wrath of Herod who wants to kill the child. But in Luke they travel in apparent complete safety north to Herod’s capital, Jerusalem. These are two lovely myths concocted to try to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem in Judea, thus fulfilling Messianic prophecy — when everyone knew he came from Galilee. They’re lovely stories, and they take the side of the poor and the weak against the rich and powerful, but they give us almost no reliable historical information about the birth of Jesus.
So Luke has to explain how Jesus’ family got to Bethlehem for his birth and Matthew has to explain how Jesus got to Nazareth after his birth. Nothing like an ancient North-South rivalry to jumpstart stories of human redemption. 🙂 But seriously, is there any indication that the locality appellations that followed people’s names in 1st century Palestine (“Mary of Bethany,” “Joseph of Arimathea,” etc.) generally identified the birthplace of the person in question or their settled residence? Maybe most people in ancient Palestine did not relocate very often; most were poor and probably took up occupations in or very near the villages and cities of their birth, with only very privileged or very distressed exceptions. But it may leave us with another fundamentally unsolvable puzzle about Jesus; not only do we not know exactly what years he lived, but we don’t necessarily know where he was born either.
For the vast majority of people, birthplace and place of residence was the same — especially for people who would need a designation like this.
Bart, when asked about Bethlehem’s population at the time of Jesus, you replied, “Just a few hundred I should think.” Earlier you wrote that many or most Jews might have said they were descendants of David.
That would explain why the inns in Bethlehem were full, eh? It’s comical–most Jews arriving in tiny Bethlehem to register for that census…
I like to play with the idea that Joseph could have gone to Jerusalem (more inns, more hotels) to register since he was descended from Solomon. No, wait. According to Luke, Jesus descends from Nathan (son of David) instead of Solomon (yet Mathew says Solomon instead of Nathan).
I need to look again at your books (I own all of them) to see if you cover why Luke goes with Nathan and why Matthew goes with Solomon.
There’s no sophisticated explanation of it really: Matthew had one set of stories and Luke another.
Or they had the same basic set of stories, then chose/shaped the ones that suited each writer’s ideas?
If there were multiple nativitity narratives floating around, and you wanted to write the nativity into a gospel, you would have to pick one.
The interesting thing is that these two very conflicting narratives both got sandwiched into the New Testament, with only Mark to interpose between them.
Seem like different stories to me!
According to these writers, Joseph had nothing physically to do with Jesus’ birth. Why bother with all the genealogy? If the early church fathers realized there were problems with this, why didn’t they do some editing? After all, they had no problem screaming and rewriting or deleting other texts they did not approve of.
They couldn’t edit Joseph directly into the genealogy because of the virgin birth. The idea seems to be that Jesus “inherited” the bloodline by being adopted.
Would you take Matthew’s account to be more historically reliable than Luke’s? Matthew, after all, describes Joseph’s fear of Archelaus, which makes historical sense since, according to Josephus, Archelaus slaughtered thousands of Jews shortly after his father’s death.
No, I think Joseph’s fear of Archelaus is in the story in order to explain why he didn’t return to Bethlehem after all. So it is being driven by a literary concern, not a historical one. I think both accounts are legendary.
There is at least one statement in ancient manuscripts (Arabic Nativity Gospel) that the wise men were Zoroastrian priests.
Zoroaster foretold the coming of three Messianic figures, each at about 1000 year intervals. Jesus would have been the first in this series. The wise men, recognizing the fulfillment of their prophecy came to see him. Possibly also, they knew that this child would be seen as a danger to the king, so they brought the family gold which financed a trip and an extended stay in Egypt to save the child’s life. Viewed this way, the coming of the wise men can be viewed as a rescue mission.
If this is true then it shows a link between the monotheistic Zoroastrian religion & The Jewish/Christian Religion.
When do you think the Arabic Nativity Gospel was originally written?
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy
7. And it came to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem of Judaea, in the time of King Herod, behold, magi came from the east to Jerusalem, as Zeraduscht (5) had predicted; and there were with them gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And they adored Him, and presented to Him their gifts.
This account also says that the Star was an angel.
We’re the wise men Zoroastrian priests? Did they travel to see the child because they recognized the fulfillment of the prophecy of Zoroaster?