I grew up hearing about Santa Clause but my parents wouldn’t
come out and say if he’s real. My family went to a special Christmas service at
church on Christmas Eve before going home to open presents. It was wonderful.
At church I learned about the Christmas story that was depicted in the nativity
scenes and children’s books. I was taught that this story was historically
accurate. The Bible mentions historical things like Roman leaders, cities, time
frames, historical events and so on. So it had the ring of truth. I never heard
anyone so much as question any of it. This, to me, was proof of Jesus being
rooted in real history. But once I took a closer look at the story under a
microscope, the details didn’t get clearer. They got even more unclear.
Where do we get the Christmas story? It’s found in the
gospels of Matthew and Luke. But a more important question would be where do we
not find the Christmas story? It is not found in the oldest gospel, Mark. Mark
completely ignores Jesus’ wildly fantastical birth described later in Matthew
and Luke. His original story assumes that Jesus was just an ordinary man, born
in the ordinary way. In fact, in Mark we read that “Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they
could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him,
for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” (Mark 3:20-21 ESV). Now if Mary
and Jesus’ siblings were all well aware that Jesus’ birth was filled with
angels appearing and prophesying about him, wise men and shepherds visiting
him, kings trying to kill him, astronomical signs, fleeing to other countries
for safety, being born in a stable, etc., why would they be at all surprised that
Jesus was preaching and performing miracles? Would they really think Jesus was
out of his mind? No.
In Mark, no genealogy is mentioned linking Jesus to David.
Ancient prophecy was understood to say that the Messiah would be of David’s
lineage, as Luke and Matthew attempted to establish (with numerous
irreconcilable contradictions I might add). And curiously, Matthew and Luke
borrowed the majority of Mark’s content as source material. They each added a
lot of material, redacted some, and changed certain things in their gospels.
Naturally Mark’s meagerly gospel would cause many to ask questions about this
miracle powered man. So Matthew and Luke filled in some of the important yet lacking
parts of Mark’s story.
Paul preached about Jesus being the promised savior of the world.
But for whatever reason Paul did not mention anything of Jesus’ teachings found
in the gospels. He didn’t mention what we call the Christmas story either. He
basically neglected to say much of anything about Jesus’ earthly life. His
Jesus was mostly a theological one, not a historical figure that people would
have heard a lot about as the gospels depict, if Jesus was even a real person. His
Jesus rose from the dead and is enthroned in heaven now. Obviously this man is
more significant than even Moses or Elijah was. So decades later, after Paul
had already written his seven letters now included in the New Testament, the
gospels’ authors took creative liberties in painting Jesus out to be the quintessential
prophet hero that many were hoping God would send.
Mark told Jesus’ tale as though he lifted characters and
passages from the Old Testament and made Jesus an amalgam of its characters and
who fulfilled various prophecies. Some scholars think that Mark was written as
midrash. Midrash is basically an interpretive way of reading into the Old
Testament. So the gospel of Mark may have been a way of taking the Old
Testament and creating a story about Jesus that “fulfilled” its stories and
teachings in such a way so as to give a Christian explanation why God allowed
the Jewish Temple to be destroyed by Rome in 70 C .E., the most significant
event in Judaism at the time. But this is not certain. What is clear though is
that Mark’s intention was not to write a historically accurate biography of a
real person named Jesus but to tell a story for his own purposes. Matthew and
Luke took Mark’s material and put their own spin on it for their own different
purposes. And this is where things get really confusing.
Naturally people want to know a lot more about the origins
of the greatest and most powerful prophet ever. So Luke and Matthew added Jesus’
origin to the story. This reminds me of how comic book superheroes become
extremely popular before the writers cash in on their popularity and later on start
slowly delving more into their fantastical origins, with different writers
adding different pieces to the puzzle. Take Wolverine or Cable for example. Jesus
was a hero whose popularity demanded an origin story too. But there wasn’t one,
not until Matthew and Luke supplied one for the hungry masses. For them, Mark
became like Jesus'miracle of multiplying the boy’s lunch of loaves and fish. A little bit was
miraculously stretched to feed a multitude.
When was Jesus born? Well, as Bart Ehrman likes to say, “That
depends on which gospel you read.” We’ll start with Matthew, written very closely
to when Luke’s was about 10-20 years after Mark, which was originally penned
around 68-70. This places their writings at about 86 to 96 years after Jesus’
reported birth. Keep in mind that this was before the time of the printing
press, the internet or journalism. Written material was precious and was all
hand written. Literacy was not nearly as common as it is today. All people were
superstitious and had no scientific understanding of the way the world worked. Belief
in gods, miracles and myths was the rule of the day across all cultures. It was
fertile ground for larger than life stories to develop around famous people and
legendary fictional characters. We have numerous examples of this as evidence
of the atmosphere of the time.
Matthew wrote, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of
Judea in the days of Herod the king…” Mat 2:1. This is our first of three
pieces of historical information Matthew mentioned that we can use to date
Jesus’ birth. We know that Herod the Great ruled from 34 B.C.E. to 4 B.C.E. So
obviously this places Jesus’ birth earlier than 4 B.C.E.
Matthew’s next piece of historical information that we can
use to pinpoint the date of Jesus’ birth was the “star of the east.” “… Wise
men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born
king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose (or “in the east”) and have
come to worship him.” Mat 2:2. This is extremely problematic. Now we know that
a star cannot pinpoint a particular house since stars are actually located
countless light-years from earth. If a star were to somehow miraculously move
close to the earth our entire planet would burn up immediately. Could this
really mean something else? We have no way to know. But we do know that no
ancient historian (or other gospel authors) mentioned anything out of the
ordinary about any star at that time. And they were careful to record all
notable astronomical events that were observed. Astronomers today have cataloged
most astronomical phenomena throughout history by extrapolating backwards.
There is nothing that might match up with what Matthew described unless we
assume that “star” really meant one of a number of other things. But the common
person was not well versed in the history of astronomical events going back 90
years and in distant countries back then (or today). So slipping this in would
easily go by unchallenged by almost anyone who read it. People believed that
the birth or death of a ruler was often heralded by an astronomical event, a
comet or something special. So this star doesn’t help us to pinpoint anything.
But it does give us reason to pause at Matthew’s credibility as a historian.
The third bit of information Matthew gave us to work with
was the infamous “slaughter of the innocents.” “Then Herod, when he saw that he
had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all
the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or
under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.” (Matthew
2:16-16 ESV) This places Jesus’ birth at less than two years before Herod
reportedly killed the infant boys in Bethlehem, dating it at around 6 B.C.E.
And again here in Matthew, we have no corroborating evidence from ancient
historians’ writings mentioning anything about this atrocious attack on the
Jewish baby boys in Bethlehem. That is curious considering how much some of
these authors did write about that region and Herod in that time. And again, no
other gospel author mentioned this major event. Ironically this story echoes
the story in Exodus of Israel’s most important prophet, Moses. When Moses was
born, the Egyptian Pharaoh executed all the baby Jewish boys in the land. But
Moses was miraculously spared, just like Jesus. Coincidence? Interestingly
enough, Matthew adds that Jesus escaped this slaughter by fleeing to, where
else? Egypt.
If Matthew was all we had to work with at least we could
pinpoint the time when Jesus was supposed to have been born. We wouldn’t need
to figure out how to deal with the guiding star in the East or the slaughter of
the innocents to nail it down. But things get a lot messier when we take Luke’s
account into consideration.
“In those
days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be
registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of
Syria… And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to
Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was
with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And
she gave birth to her firstborn son…” (Luke 2:1-7 ESV).
Luke’s “facts” are so mixed up and incorrect that if he were
a journalist reporting about the Middle East today he would work for Fox News.
Here’s why I say this. Quirinius became governor in Syria in 6 C.E. So we know
that if Jesus was born under his governorship he would have to be born in 6
C.E., not in 10 years earlier in 6 B.C.E. as Matthew recorded. To
make matters worse, Luke put’s Herod’s reign continuing until 6 C.E., 10 -12
years after we know Herod died in 4 B.C.E. “In the days of Herod, king of
Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah... And he had a wife… and her name
was Elizabeth.” (Luke 1:5 ESV). Luke goes on to say that Elizabeth gave birth
to John the Baptist six months before Jesus was born. This places Jesus’ birth
in about 6 C.E. while making Herod live and rule another ten or more years
after he died. This is a pretty damnable mistake for Luke to make. He
contradicted his own book! Jesus obviously couldn’t have been born both while
Herod was ruling and while Quirinius was ruling 10 years after Herod’s death.
History records that in 6 C.E. Quirinius conducted a census
in Judea. Judea is a separate province than Galilee. Galilee wasn’t included in
the census, nor was the entire Roman empire included as Luke stated. Nor were
people required to travel to the birthplace of their ancient ancestors, which would
have been a very confusing logistics nightmare, not to mention that it would be
impossible for many people to figure out where to go. Galilee is where Nazareth,
Jesus’ hometown, purportedly was. So Luke tried getting Mary and Joseph out of
Galilee and into Judea to have Jesus born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill what
he interpreted to be a prophecy in Micah 5:2 describing where the Messiah would
be born.
Matthew failed to mention any of this important information.
Instead, Matthew recorded the harrowing escapades of the Holy Family fleeing
their hometown of Bethlehem to Egypt while Herod slaughtered the Bethlehemite
baby boys. Then they are told by angels to go back to Judea but they then avoid
Bethlehem for safety reasons. So they settle in Nazareth, contradicting Luke who
said they originated in Nazareth.
To make matters even worse, Matthew said that Jesus grew up in
Nazareth in order to fulfill the scripture stating “He would be called a
Nazarene.” Matthew 2:23. However the only passage that reads similar to this is
Judges 13:5 where is says of Samson, the Jewish savior of the time, “The child
shall be called a Nazarite.” A Nazarite (not Nazarene as Matthew states) is a
person following a Nazarite vow described in Numbers 5. It has nothing to do
with Jesus or Nazareth ( Hebrew “Netzeret”), a place not mentioned in the Old
Testament. The Hebrew word, “nazar” or “Nazarite” literally translates as “a consecrate,”
referring to a person following the Nazarite vow. Maybe this extreme styled devotion
to God that the Nazarite vow described is was what Matthew was getting at. We
have no way to know. At any rate, it is quite a stretch to try and make the
Nazarite vow and Samson’s story somehow apply directly to Jesus living in
Nazareth (which quite possibly didn’t even exist yet at that time anyhow). It
looks a lot like Matthew was trying to fulfill prophecy by getting Jesus born
in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt and returning to be raised in Nazareth.
Meanwhile Luke fails to mention any of these important
events. Luke’s story reads a lot more nice, Christmassy and safe than Matthew.
Luke has no one’s life in danger, no slaughter of babies, no fleeing to Egypt,
and no relocating to Nazareth. Luke records the Holy Family traveling from their
hometown of Nazareth to Bethlehem temporarily and Jesus being born there.
Angels appear to local shepherds who visit the newborn Jesus. No wise men from
the east are mentioned. No star is mentioned. No angry, jealous Herod is
mentioned. No one was killed. And no one fled anywhere. Luke’s story is vastly
different than Matthew’s and obviously contradicts it in numerous
irreconcilable ways.
Having a miraculous conception and birth is a common motif
in pagan myths about the birth of various gods. This concept would have been
familiar to the diversity of readers of the time. In the Old Testament, obvious parallels can be
made of Jesus’ birth to Moses’ birth. Solomon, Samson, Samuel, King Ahaz and other
Old Testament heroes had angels announce their births and destinies like Jesus
also. Astronomical phenomena were associated with the birth of rulers, heroes or
gods in both pagan thought and Jewish thought (c.f. Numbers 24:17). Jesus’
birth narratives are nothing original. They borrowed heavily from these other
stories.
The common Christmas story of Jesus’ birth is a mashing
together of Matthew and Luke that erases or ignores the contradictions,
typically cherry picking the cozier parts out to make it sanitized and brief
for the sake of the kids. The way it is told isn’t found in the Bible unless you
pick to read only Matthew or Luke alone. The dates don’t match up even closely
with a ten year difference. The circumstances are completely different. The
hometown of Mary and Joseph differs. Obviously each author was either working
from very different, contradictory sources and/or they made up the stories out
of their imaginations to make it fit their erroneous interpretations of Old
Testament prophecy and Mark’s Jesus coming from Nazareth.
Based on these issues alone we can surmise that the birth
narratives in Matthew and Luke are not reliable sources of historical
information about Jesus. We have every reason to suspect that the authors were
writing myth and legend. Mark first wrote and he mentioned nothing about Jesus’
supposedly miraculous and adventure filled birth. The last gospel, John,
curiously also mentioned nothing about Jesus’ birth. He simply described Jesus
as somehow incarnating in human form from a heavenly one (John 1:1-3),
elevating Jesus to an even more divine status. Paul, who wrote about Jesus long
before Mark gave it a shot, simply wrote that Jesus was “born of a woman”
(Galatians 4:4), seemingly in the ordinary fashion like all people. That would
have been another great opportunity to mention the theologically significant
virgin conception of Jesus. Funny how he missed that.
So maybe there really is a “war on Christmas” after all and
Paul started it?
No comments:
Post a Comment