Loading...
Here now is the fifth of my twelve favorite Christmas posts of years gone by, in our celebration of the Twelve Days of Christmas.
******************************
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.
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
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 worship a new Jewish king is never explained (did people worship Solomon? Or Herod?). Presumably the reader is to assume that it is “that” Jewish King, the Messiah, who will save people not from foreign oppressors but from their sin, as the angel himself points out earlier. In any event, the wise men are led to Jerusalem and the star apparently stops or disappears. So they make inquiries, word gets to the king Herod, he asks the jewish scholars where the messiah is to be born, they tell him Bethlehem – since so it is predicted in Scripture — he tells the wise men, and asks them to come back to tell him when they learn the child’s whereabouts, and lo and behold, the star reappears and leads them to Bethlehem and stops “over the place” where the child is. The child is in a house (v. 11). The wise men worship him with three gifts of gold frankincense and myrrh (we’re not told that there were three wise men, only that they had three gifts). They then are warned in a dream not to return to Herod who wants to kill the child, so they go another way.
Herod realizes he’s been duped and sends out the troops to kill all the boys two years and younger in Bethlehem, the so-called “Slaughter of the Innocents,” said again to fulfill Scripture. But Joseph had been warned in a dream and fled before the troops came, taking the child and his mother to Egypt. They stay in Egypt until Herod dies. But when they come back to the land, they are unable to settle again in Judea, because Herod’s son Archelaus is ruling there, and he’s worse even than his father had been. So they resettle in the north, in Nazareth, to fulfill the Scripture that said he would ba a Nazarene.
This is a terrifically interesting passage in its own right, a powerful and moving story. But historically it is absolutely riddled with problems, as I’ll point out in the next post. Here I simply want to make a simple point. Suppose you were to read Matthew, and Matthew was the only Gospel you had ever read, and this is the only version of Jesus’ birth you had ever heard, so that you were not assuming that its story had to be filled out by some other account of these events (e.g., those of Luke or of the Christmas pageant you saw last night), and suppose you asked yourself, according to this account, what is Joseph and Mary’s home town?
The answer should be obvious. Their hometown, for this account, is Bethlehem. That’s where they’re from. There is no word here about them coming from somewhere else. Jesus is born, and it is in Bethlehem. The live in a “house” there – as the wise men discovered. Why would they be living in a house if they were just visiting for a weekend to register for a census? Because they aren’t registering for a census. They live there.
Further evidence: when Joseph brings the family back from Egypt, where is it he first plans to go? Judea (the country Bethlehem was in), not Galilee (where Nazareth was). The only reason he can’t return “home” is because of the wicked new ruler Archelaus. So he has to move the family. The original home was Bethlehem, but Jesus ends up being raised in Nazareth.
Note also, for a third piece of evidence, the wise men do not appear to come the night Jesus was born, as commonly imagined. The star evidently appeared at Jesus’ birth, and it takes the wise men a long time to get there. Evidence: when Herod tells his troops to slaughter the innocent boys, he instructs them to kill every boy 2 years and under. If the child was born yesterday, there would be no need to kill the toddlers, only the newborns, or say any child under a month just to be sure. This shows that for this story, the wise men came many months, or well over a year, after Jesus was born. And where do they find him? In Bethlehem. In his house. No way around it, I think. Matthew assumes that Joseph and Mary originally lived in Bethlehem, and they moved to Nazareth only because they had to escape the wrath of the Judean kings.
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
26 Comments
Leave A Comment
“They don’t actually call him Emmanuel, of course (a Hebrew term that means ‘God is with us’) but Jesus (which means ‘salvation.’)”
What is the scholarly consensus on what Jesus’ given name at birth was? Is it really thought to have been “Jesus”? Was that a common name in that region and time? Or was “Jesus” a nom de guerre that he picked up during his ministry?
It would be remarkable if parents named their child “Salvation” and then he grew up to claim to be the messiah (even an altogether human messiah) and then an entire religion was built up around him based on the premise that he saved all of mankind from eternal damnation (if only they believe).
Is it thought that his given name at birth was something more ordinary, or was “Jesus” already an ordinary name?
Yes, it was almost certainly Yeshua. It was one of the most common names in Israel at the time.
Dear Bart,
I was listening to your (excellent) Misquoting Jesus podcast on Was Jesus Really Born in Bethlehem (https://youtu.be/0i7Sa3WXfhM?si=NMjSQkFsUuTfky_z). From about 17m onwards you discuss two non-canonical accounts of Jesus’ birth, and you state “we don’t have any accounts that are independent of the New Testament” (19:07). You then discuss the Gospel of James and the Gospel of Ps-Matthew.
I agree those two accounts are probably inspired by NT texts. However – I would like to propose we have two, maybe three accounts that are independent of the NT:
1. The Odes of Solomon (Ode19) which some scholars (Charlesworth1998:14-20) see as a 1st C text, especially as it appears to be composed by a Johannine community who were influenced by the DSS.
2. The Ascension of Isaiah (AoI11), which Bauckham (1998:384) dates to the late 1st C, and is also thought to be linked to a Johannine community (as you argued, Ehrman2013:336-7).
3. Ps. Eusebius and the Star is an early 2nd C text (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_star.htm, see Hannah2015:433-463 for a good review) that may or may not predate the NT infancy narratives.
The first two (and possibly the third) do not seem to show dependence on the NT infancy narratives. Would you agree? If not, why?
I’m always intrigued by how scholars of early Christianity come up with dates for documents they discuss; there is this predictable passion to date everything *early*, almost pro forma, and almost always, it seems, to instill greater significance in them. My view is that there’s no way the Ascension of Isaiah is late first century. Passwords for getting through the heavenly realms?? Having connections with Johannine texts certainly wouldn’t put it there. As to the Odes, I don’t recall Charlesworth’s arguments in detail (I looked at them many years ago), though I remember being completely unconvinced by them. Ode 19 is clearly dependent, in my view, on the Protevangelium, so no earlier than mid second century. I haven’t done much with Ps. Eusebius and the Star, but a text in a 5th-6th century Syriac manuscript certainly needs some seroius argumentation to consider it earlier thanthe 80s! With all those lists of names and places — that is clearly a tendency of later Christian writings (do you know Metzger’s essay on “Names for the Nameless”? Terrific!) and nowhere seen in earlier writings to my knowledge (let alone 1st century). So I’m afraid I myself don’t see any reason for thinking these as independent/earlier sources, any more than Ignatius’s well-known riff on the star of Bethlehem.
Many thanks for the thoughtful response.
On Ascension of Isaiah – we do have the Egyptian Book of the Dead that used heavenly passwords for over 1’500 years before AoI, so heavenly passwords were nothing new. Bauckham argues that as some disciples of Jesus were believed to remain alive when AoI was composed, it couldn’t have been composed later than the 1st C.
On Odes – how do you see it dependent on the Protevangelium?
In both cases, as I date the infancy narratives to the 2nd C they would be independent, but I think the strongest argument for independence is not their dates but the differences in content as both Odes and AoI do not appear to share as many textual features to Mt and Lk 1-2 as say GJames does, or the Gospel of Ps-Matthew does for GJames and the infancy gospel of Thomas.
I would compare the differences between Odes and AoI to GMt&GLk1-2 to the differences between Q and GMk or GJn, in that while they feature the same characters and have a similar interest or purpose, they appear independent of one another given the stark differences in style and contents.
1. Passwords. I’m talking about Christian ascent narratives. And I don’t know of any evidence that Jesus disciples were alive when it was written. In fact, I’ll say boldly there ain’t any compelling arguments at all. What strike you as the compelling arguments.
2. Read them both!!
3. We establish relationships between texts by their similarities, not their differences. They will always have more or less differences — necessarily (usually more) — since otherwise the later author would just copy the earlier. And “style” has no bearing on the questoin of dependence (unless it’s the same style! Since then there *is* borrowing; but NOT having similarities of style isn’t relevant.)
Thanks for this.
I’d like to come back to the first two points at a later date, but I’d like to follow up on the third point about establishing textual dependence on similarities now.
Most scholars (and I believe yourself) would argue that Q, Mark and John are independent of one another. However, if we look at the introduction of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus in all three texts, we find a series of similarities.
All three texts introduce JBap as fulfilling Isaian prophecy as the voice in the wilderness preparing the way of the Lord. In Q and Mark we have John baptizing Jesus. And in all three we have a claim that the Spirit descend on Jesus.
If texts are shown to be dependent due to their similarities rather than their differences, why do most scholars argue these three texts are independent?
Because we would expect there to be similar *themes* in any story that is in circulation, but worded very differently depending on who was telling it. The only real way to be sure there is copying going on is extensive verbatim agreements. Think about newspaper accounts of an event, written by different journalists — for example, the death of Diana. Many themes will be shared. But what if two accounts have entire paragraphs virtually the same with only slight changes of wording. Almost certainly there is copying. Early Christians told stories about John as a fulfillment of prophecy, baptizing Jesus, upon whom the Spirit came. Same story, told in very different ways.
That said: where does Q say that John baptized Jesus? Or for that matter, where does John say that? And where does Q indicate that the Spirit came upon Jesus?
I’ve now managed to access my research on AoI, so I’d like to follow up on your first point.
If you’re talking about Christian ascent narratives rather than passwords, then we have 2Cor12:1-4 (3 heavens), Rev4:1-2 (1 heaven), and 2Enoch (10 heavens) where Christians ascend into the heavens. The first two are 1st C texts, and possibly 2 Enoch depending on when you date it. Merkabah mysticism focused on heavenly visions, and Col2:18 may reference it. We also have older Jewish texts such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel that have heavenly throne room visions.
On AoI referencing living disciples of Jesus, we have:
“And many believers and saints having seen Him for whom they were hoping, who was crucified, Jesus the Lord Christ … and those also who were believers in Him – of these few in those days will be left as His servants, while they flee from desert to desert, awaiting the coming of the Beloved.”(AoI4:13)
Bauckham, rightly in my view, sees two types of believers – eyewitnesses of Jesus, and those who later joined the faith. Both groups have suffered depletion “of these few in those days” when AoI was composed which suggests a late 1st C date.
Of course there are ascent narratives!! (Do you know my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell?) My point is there aren’t any ascent narratives that involve passwords in the Christian traditoin until the second century gnostic texts.
And of course AoL mentions living disciples. Every later pseudepigraphical narrative from early Christianity connected with the apostles of Jesus speaks of them as living!
Ah, I see. So, the threshold now is a Christian ascent narrative that includes passwords. I would argue this is the first to combine the two, and see no reason why we must date AoI after other texts that have this combination. After all, we don’t date 1Corinthians after GMk on the basis that no other text has discussed the last supper. Someone has to be first.
The idea AoI was composed during the disciples’ lifetime is enhanced by its expectation that the parousia would still occur within the first generation of believers, as Bauckham explains: “those who had seen are mentioned because the author holds the early Christian expectation, not yet disappointed, that the Parousia would occur within the lifetime of the generation to which the apostles belonged. In that case the passage – and, on our view, the Ascension of Isaiah as a whole – must date from a time when more than a few of this generation were still alive, i.e. before c80 C.E.” (Bauckham1998:384)
Can the same be said of the later pseudepigraphical texts you mention?
Interestingly, Bauckhams’ date precedes where most place GMt and GLk, meaning it has an earlier, independent, infancy narrative.
Ah, that’s not the threshold now. It’s always been the threshold (for me! I.e., that’s alays been my argument). And sure, there have been generations/centuries of Christians saying “Those of you standing here will not taste death….” They don’t seem to realize the problem. And yes, that is Bauckham’s view.
This has not always been your threshold.
On the 26th December, your threshold was passwords, but I showed earlier texts that used passwords.
On the 27th, it changed to ascent narratives, but then I showed earlier texts that used ascent narratives.
On the 1st January it changed a second time, and this time it was both passwords and ascent narratives.
I expect if I could show an earlier text that has this, then you would change your position to your very specific and narrow 2013 position that unless a text has Jesus both descending and ascending through seven heavens using passwords, then it cannot date earlier than the early 2nd C when this did occur (Ehrman2013:334 Forgery and Counterforgery, 1st paragraph).
The difficulty with this method is that it becomes circular. Why should we date the first text that fulfills this criterion to the early 2nd C if no other text has – shouldn’t we find a later text to date it? But then when we do, shouldn’t that text be dated after the next text that does? And so on, and so on.
Isn’t it better to date texts on other criteria, and only then place thematic parallel texts as antecedent or subsequent?
Well, maybe I’ve mistyped something in a hurry, but it would be crazy to say there were no ascent narratives before the second century. They are in Greek, Roman, Jewish, and NT traditions. (Paul! Revelation!)
The Magi’s journey to Jerusalem began when they witnessed Jupiter, the celestial representation of the most high god, entering the constellation Virgo, symbolizing the virgin. This astronomical event led them to believe that Isaiah’s messianic prophecy was about to be fulfilled. They set out towards Jerusalem, arriving in Bethlehem exactly nine months after Jupiter had left Virgo.
Typically, Jupiter remains in Virgo for about a year. Therefore, the Magi arrived approximately one year and nine months after Jupiter first entered Virgo. This coincided with the time of Mary’s childbirth, allowing the Magi to visit the newborn during Mary and Joseph’s brief stay in Bethlehem.
Herod, in an attempt to eliminate the potential threat, ordered the execution of all male infants in Bethlehem born within the past two years. This timeframe was chosen to ensure that he caught the child, given that the Magi had arrived approximately one year and nine months after Jupiter’s entrance into Virgo.
When Mary and Joseph returned from Egypt, the text does not say that they were heading back to Bethlehem. An angel told Joseph to return to Israel. Unlike Herod, Archelaus’s power did not extend to Galilee so they settled there.
Dr. Ehrman,
In 1 Chron 4:1, it states Bethlehem as son of Ephrathah, son of Hur (not Perez!). (See also 1 Sam 17:12). So Bethlehem is a Person, not a place?… If Bethlehem is a place, then why would Micah refer to Bethlehem as a clan? Also, even if used as a place, why would Micah use a place named after the wrong son of Judah (Hur), esp. since Micah is speaking of a Davidic (Perez) ruler. On the other hand, if Bethlehem is a person, then why all the rigamarole to turn it into a place?
I guess lots of places are named after persons (Rome from Romulus; San Francisco; Lincoln; etc….) But there definitely was and is a Bethlehem a place. Persons also led to clans. As to Miah’s knowledge of geneology — I don’t know!
If the Old Testament prophesy was that he would be called Emmanuel, why was he called Jesus?
Because it doesn’t say he was “named” Emmanuel but “called” that — that is, spoken of as the one in whom God is with us. As a modern example, I myself am “called” Professor but it’s not my name.
Hello again,
Your explanation made sense to me and then I went to read the actual Scriptures about this issue (should have done that first).
Isaiah 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us'”
The name Immanuel is a transliteration of the original Hebrew word, which is composed of “Immanu” (with us) and “El” (God). The NET Bible is one of the few translations that maintains this distinction.
It seems to me that calling his name Immanuel would be to give him that name?
I’m currently reading your book Armageddon, and I heard you talk about this in courses and Youtube lectures. Whisenant, Lindsey and their prophecies were unknown to me until I heard you talk about them a few years ago. But I do know about Jehovah’s witnesses and their teachings (such as their ideas about the year 1914) since my teens. They are active also in Sweden, and I have friends that have been involved with them.
It struck me when I read the prophecies in Matthew (mostly in 1-2), and to some extent elsewhere in NT, that Matthew (and the others) use the scriptures in a similar way as Jehovah’s withesses, and also as Whisenant, Lindsey and other modern apocalypticists: They all read passages from the scriptures without bothering about the context when they were written, put them together in a random fashion without any logic and apply them to later events.
Do you think it is meaningful to compare Matthew’s interpretation of the scriptures to JW, Whisenant, Lindsey etc. as I do, or were the situations in the times they were and are active too different to make such a comparision meaningful?
I think you’re right that they have a similar approach to Scripture, and in fact they all do have common roots (as I explain a bit in my book when I talk about the Millerites and the development of fundamentalism in the UK and US).
Joseph to divorce Mary ? I missed there mariage party in thé Gospels ?
To break of a betrothal (which was an actual ceremony) required something like a divorce (rather than, say, ghosting). But the term in Greek simply means something like “to release her”
Hello again,
Your explanation made sense to me and then I went to read the actual Scriptures about this issue (should have done that first).
Isaiah 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us’”
The name Immanuel is a transliteration of the original Hebrew word, which is composed of “Immanu” (with us) and “El” (God). The NET Bible is one of the few translations that maintains this distinction.
It seems to me that calling his name Immanuel would be to give him that name?
Apparently not, since in the text he is not given that name. So it must be a description of who he is and what his presence/authority menas.