Loading...Here now is the third of my twelve favorite Christmas posts of years gone by, in our celebration of the Twelve Days of Christmas.
******************************
As we move to the Christmas season, I thought it would be interesting to post some extracts on one of the most popular Gospels in the Middle Ages, an account of Jesus’ birth – and before that, his mother Mary’s birth – and what happened in the aftermath. It is called the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, because modern scholars once thought that it had claimed to be written by Matthew (the author of the first canonical Gospel); but in fact, as you will see, it claims to be written by Jesus’ brother James.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
So, I find it easy to understand how honest believers could believe these fanciful stories, but how could honest believers construct them in the first place? Just take the two birth narratives for example. It would seem that somebody had to invent them in the first place. I get why they are there, to prove the identity of Jesus as Messiah, etc. And I understand that similar stories were relatively common within the ancient near east cultures. But within the Christian communities of the first century, the birth narratives were fabricated for inclusion in the two gospels. How could an honest Christian just make that up? Is it that the gospels were never meant to be taken literally in the first place, but just sort of treatises on the meaning of Jesus dressed up in details that didn’t really matter except for literary purposes? It just seems like a dishonest practice within a community that valued honesty.
My view is that rumors and gossip are not usually just made up by someone who is deceitfully fabricating something. There is a lot of scholarship on how it actually happens, and normally it’s just something someone says or assumes or mishears or misunderstands and then twists, without knowing fully they’re doing so. I’ve heard all sorts of crazy stories about me, as I’m sure yo uhve about yourself, that simply aren’t true but almost certainly weren’t fabricated maliciously.
Have you heard of or read Brant Pitre’s new book Jesus and the Divine Chronology? I just about finished the book and he mentioned you a few times, in a respectful manner.
It’s given me a whole new perspective of christology, especially in the synoptics.
I’d love to see you guys debate.
I haven’t read it. He and I tend to have different views of things….
Also Bart did you know how different salvation based on Catholic catechism is compared to protestant theology? It’s borderline radical and imo much more fair.
Also I believe Catholic interpretation of the Bible in terms of it’s inerrancy is far superior.
You should debate Scott Hahn. I thought your debate with J. Akin was edifying.
Yes, it’s interesting how different sensible people think one theological view is more sensible than another! My sense, though,is that there isn’t a single Catholic or Protestant view of many of the key theological issues, but a range of views. (I know conservative evangelical Christian scholars who don’t believe in the existence of hell, e.g., or that everyone will in the end be saved)
Wow! I thought that every single conservative Evangelical scholar would definitely believe in the ideas of hell and exclusive salvation.
Hi Bart,
You are saying that the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew was probably produced in the 7th century, and it is based loosely on the Proto-Gospel of James that was probably produced in the 2nd century.
Now … I am interested in 3 key points in the story of Pseudo-Matthew: the casting of lots, the Guardian, and Mary!
Are these 3 points derived from Pseudo-James?
The background for this question:
These 3 points appear in the Quran but in very different details. Quran 3:37 and Quran 3:44 implies that the parents of Mary died when she was young, and every one of her elderly relatives wanted to be her guardian, and therefore, they cast a lot and the lot came in favor of Zechariah (the father of John).
This is very different than the story in the Pseudo-Matthew, but still, these shared 3 points do trigger attention. So, I am asking if the Gospel of Pseudo-James has these 3 points in a story, and also, I am interested if there is any Gospel before the 7th century that has these 3 points in a story.
In the Proto-Gospel Mary’s parents are not said to have died young, there is no casting of lots for her guardianship (she is handed over to the temple authorities at 3 years and then to Joseph when she reaches puberty), and she is not connected with Zechariash. I don’t know of these three points in any other Gospel.
Here in the intensity of football season, not a season passes that some color commentator fails to recall an “immaculate reception” from some previous greatest game of all time. I enjoy watching football on TV, and I enjoy wondering if the color commentator has a grasp of the origin of the idiom he uses to describe the pass completion he enthuses about.
Probably not. Well, maybe if he were queried, he’d refer to Jesus’ birth as being immaculate. But not even many Roman Catholics can explicate the mystery that lies behind the color commentator’s adaptation of one of the Five Glorious Mysteries of the rosary.
Fascinating! It reads so similarly to the gospels, it’s amazing that it was written so much later. The characters, terms, and symbols align seamlessly with the way Matthew wrote. I also get a sense that maybe the author was portraying Mary as a type of Ruth here and Joseph to Boaz?
There were some elements that seemed propagandistic. Joseph is an old man who wouldn’t be interested in having intercourse with her. Plus he already has sons. These comments seem forced.
I wonder if the purpose of writing this had less to do with people accepting it as an authentic proto gospel, and more to do with planting ideas in people’s minds about how it all could have went down. Just like I know that the Bible doesn’t say there were 3 wisemen, I always imagine there are because of the song “We Three Kings.” Maybe that’s what’s going on here?
Well, I know lots of old men….
And yes, I would imagine the author simply thought htis is how it happened.
If an immaculate conception is needed to warrant a sinless baby Mary, shouldn’t Anna be born of an immaculate conception by the same logic? Where does it stop?
With God it stops when he wants it to. 🙂
How creating a new life can be a sin .If you believe God has created human procreation that way then logically Hé is the Big Sinner. I doubt there is one serious catholic theologican who will not apply the immaculation to Mary
Happy New Year, Bart!
Thanks!