Loading...I’m pleased to announce that I will be doing a special event this Christmas season, a two-lecture online course called Jesus: The Actual Son of Joseph: Evidence From the New Testament Itself. This is a topic I have long thought about casually but never really dug into until recently. And when I dug, I started realizing that in fact there’s a lot buried, more than I expect. There are very good reasons for thinking that a number of the earliest sources of the New Testament (Paul, Mark, the sources of Matthew and Luke), as well as the latest (John), not only did not KNOW the tradition about Jesus being born of a virgin, but actually maintain (in some places) and suggest (in others) that he was not. Whoa.
In two lectures delivered remotely on Sunday December 10, I’ll be laying the case out in full. Obviously what someone (say the authors of the Gospels) *thought* about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth (whether those who indicate his mother was a virgin and those who indicate she was not) is not “evidence” of what actually happened. You may think your own spouse was divinely conceived (or, well, not), but that’s not exactly proof. But still, it’s interesting to see just how widely the non-virgin birth of Jesus is assumed among the New Testament authors themselves.
I should stress this course is not connected with the blog per se, but is part of my online course offerings. Blog members CAN, however, receive a discount by using the code BLOG5. Moreover, please note there is, in addition to that, early bird pricing is available until December 2. For more info and registration, go to Jesus the Actual Son of Joseph: Evidence From the New Testament Itself.
Here is a basic description:
Jesus: The Actual Son of Joseph: Evidence from the New Testament Itself
Two-Lecture Course
December 10, 2023
It is widely known that both Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus was born of a virgin. What is not widely known is that other passages of the New Testament indicate that Jesus was actually the biological son of Joseph. Some of this evidence suggests that Mary became pregnant before they were married. Even if Jesus was not born out of wedlock, he may well have been conceived out of wedlock.
This is obviously a highly controversial claim that will almost certainly cause offense to many Christian believers. But the evidence nonetheless needs to be seriously considered. It comes to us not only from other passages of Matthew and Luke themselves (both within and after their birth narratives), but even more clearly in Mark and John, neither of which mentions a virgin birth but, on contrary, contain explicit statements and other accounts that show the authors believed Jesus was the son of Joseph.
In addition to these Gospels we have a hint of Jesus’ parentage in the yet earlier writings of Paul. Moreover, alternative traditions of Jesus’ unusual birth can be found both within later Christian sources and from Jewish and pagan opponents of the third and later centuries. These later traditions may not be historical in their details, but they support the claim that Jesus’ was not actually born of a virgin.
In this two-lecture course we examine all this evidence, including the later (unlikely) rumors among the enemies of the Christian faith that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. We will then reflect again on the virgin birth stories of Matthew and Luke, which may represent Christian attempts to prove that even though Jesus’ birth was highly unusual, he was nonetheless both the Son of Man and the Son of God.
In this course we will consider the following issues.
- Why is Jesus’ virgin birth mentioned only in two passages of the NT; why don’t the other authors (such as Paul, or the authors of Mark and Luke) mention it? Was it simply not important? Didn’t they know?
- Why do three of the Gospels explicitly call Joseph Jesus’ “father”?
- Is it possible that Luke’s entire story of the virgin birth (Luke chapters 1-2) was not original but was only added to the Gospel later?
- Why do the two genealogies of Jesus trace their lines down to “Joseph,” and not to Jesus? Did their authors assume that Jesus stood in that genealogical line? If not, what’s the point of giving a genealogy that he is not related to?
- If over time Christian scribes changed the texts of the Gospels to emphasize that Joseph was *not* the father of Jesus and Christian story tellers devised narratives to show he wasn’t, does that show that they were arguing the point against earlier Christians who thought otherwise?
- Are there any stories in our NT Gospels that make almost no sense if Mary was a virgin?
- Do later rumors of Jesus’ unusual birth to a Roman soldier named Panthera suggest that it was widely known that he was not born to a married couple?
- Why did belief in the Virgin Birth become so central to Christian thinking if it is not an idea mentioned, let alone stressed, by most of the NT writings?
Again, for more info and registration, go to https://ehrman.thrivecart.com/son-of-joseph.
Dr. Ehrman, will this course be recorded and available to view after December 10?
Yup!
Of the four gospels shouldn’t the one which makes no mention of Joseph or any earthly father be considered a later gospel?
I don’t think so. He’s not mentioned in lots of Gospels. Some were written earlier than others (necessarily) and others later.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I think you made a mistake in your first point by saying,”…Mark and Luke “… don’t mention the virgin birth, perhaps you meant John? Looking forward to this course. You’re a goldmine of valuable information. Thank you. 🙂
Yup, it’s a scribal corruption of the text.
How confidant are you, based on the sources available, that the figures we know of as Joseph and Mary actually existed? This is not mythicism; certainly Jesus existed and he had parents. But it’s not until Matthew and Luke that Joseph even has a name. Mary is one of the most common names we find in the NT. You obviously don’t think the Nativity stories are historical. Could the stories identifying and describing Jesus’ parents be legends that developed over time?
It’s possible, but Mary’s name appears in Matthew, Mark (6:3), Luke, and Acts, in passages taken from a variety of sources (Mark, M, L, and wherever Acts’s is coming from). And Joseph is in independent sources in Matthew, Luke, and John. (And in some of those books the sourcs may be multiple; I’m not at all sure that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke came from the same source as the rest of their infancy narratives, e.g.) So unless there were some pretty good reason for thinking these particular names were made up (I can’t think of any offhand) then I assume those probably were were their names.
Do you think that a majority of all NT scholars, including even Fundamentalist/Evangelicals and conservative Catholics, seriously question whether at least a significant part (say, 10% or more) of the synoptic gospel material “really happened” or “really happened” in something close to the way it’s presented?
Apart from very theologically conservatives, probably everyone questions the traditions as historical I’d say.
Is there a rough estimate and consensus among historical-critical NT scholars about approximately what percentage of synoptic gospel materials—not counting the miraculous—is actually inconsistent with the part that can be persuasively argued to be what “really happened.”?
“Inconsistent” could mean a lot of things. Among others, I take it to mean material that is: (1) actually contradictory to historical material; (2) though not necessarily contradictory, is remote from the trajectory of the historical; (3) inconsistent with the general historical context within which the NT takes place.
I’m assuming that just because certain material cannot be historically established as what really happened doesn’t necessarily imply that it did not in fact happen.
No, I doubt if many have ever even thought in terms of percentages.
This question is somewhat related, having mainly to do with the genealogy in Matthew. A friend of mine, a pastor, has been trying to harmonize it with Luke’s genealogy. He’s come across this idea that Matthew was originally in Hebrew instead of Greek (and yes, he clarified he meant Hebrew and not Aramaic). Supposedly it describes Joseph as Mary’s father, meaning both her husband and her dad were named Joseph. This fixes the 14-14-13 grouping and makes the genealogy Mary’s (since she is claimed to be his only blood relative).
The only sources I can find that seem to accept this are all apologetic. It seems that maybe some manuscripts of the Shem Tov Gospel of Matthew might say father, but I don’t know Hebrew and don’t know much about that version. Is there any scholarly backing to this claim at all?
I’m afraid he’s makin’ that up. (Well, the person he’s quoting is) We don’t have a Hebrew Matthew until the middle ages (it’s a translation from the Greek). Maybe thats what he has in mind. There is really no doubt about what the original Greek wrote. (Matthew clearly didn’t write in Hebrew, since he has extensive word-for-word agreements with Mark, in GREEK)
What time on December 10th will the live event start (and end)?
An email will be sent to everyone who has purchased a ticket with details. (I’m not sure yet when it starts. It’ll last 2. 5 hours or so.
Should point 1 there say John, not Luke? Or is it an assertion about insertion?
Yup, a scribal corruption of the text.
Dr. Ehrman, I think in #1 you wanted to say, “John and Mark.” Thanks for all the information all these years.
A scribal corruption of the text!
How do I get the Blog subscriber discount? I didn’t see anywhere on the form to enter a discount code. It just says the total cost is 19.95.
YOu enter the code Blog5 where it asks for a code.
Dr Ehrman—looking forward to this! What time on the 10th does it start? Are the two lectures back to back?
Thank you.
They are, and all timing details etc. will be sent to everyone who has purchased a ticket (we haven’t firmly set the time yet)
“Matthew brought in Hosea 11 1 which was the reason he made Joseph Father of Jesus.”. This is the typology of dictated by the need to make Hosea 11 1 into a Prophecy. It makes Matthew really a genius typologist. Well that is one theory. The other is to match with Joseph of Aramathea being the equivalent of Priam.
I don’t find Joseph in Hosea 11 and the Priam thing is, well, a rather big stretch and doesn’t seem to solve much. Whatever it might solve, it’s a big stretch.
Prof. Ehrman,
Matthew 2 — “When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
(notice how its similar to Abraham/Ishmael/Isaac)
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
The son in Hosea 11 1 is Ephraim. The father of Ephraim is Joseph. So Joseph (NT) takes Jesus to Egypt and then brings him back because the Lord had said so making Jesus, Son of God! Prof Van Seters discusses Ephraim in Abraham in History and Tradition. Israel(Jacob) blesses him. This prevents a literal reading of the name Joseph as it fits too snugly as the name too cant be a coincidence. Both the Egyptian sojourn and Joseph are thus constructs to make typological perfection. Matthew was truly a genius!
Read Hosea 11:2 (which follows 11:1!). He’s referring to the people of Israel who left Egypt at the Exodus. (And keep reading the chapter after v. 2!)
In 11:3 he returns to Ephraim —
“It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
it was I who healed them.
The Joseph Tribe lines are noteworthy — “Biblical scholars regard it as obvious, from their geographic overlap and their treatment in older passages, that originally Ephraim and Manasseh were considered one tribe – that of Joseph.[11] According to several biblical scholars, Benjamin was originally part of the suggested Ephraim-Manasseh single “Joseph” tribe, but the biblical account of Joseph as his father became lost.[12][13] A number of biblical scholars suspect that the distinction of the Joseph tribes (including Benjamin) is that they were the only Israelites which went to Egypt and returned, while the main Israelite tribes simply emerged as a subculture from the Canaanites and had remained in Canaan throughout.”
The goal of Matthew is to use the Magi, King Herod and the Massacre of the Innocents, God and Jesus’s father and Egypt to build a grand parallel so “Out of Egypt I called my Son” is satisfied. Thus Joseph is introduced as the name of the father to fulfill Hosea in Matthew’s eyes.
Just listened to the podcast and how Matthew and Luke use the virgin birth in two different way, with Luke underlining Jesus being the Son of God. Great stuff, thanks.
Given that, why did Luke then go to what seems a lot of trouble to place the birth in Bethlehem, if those prophesies weren’t relevant to his message?
I wouldn’t say he didn’t care about the prophecies. He simply showed they got fulfilled without calling attention to them the way Matthew did. Some evidence of that would be found in Luke 24:27.
I”m glad you’re enjoying teh podcast!