Chapter Eleven

THE NATIVITY
THE STORY AS IS
The story of the nativity in the New Testament appears in only two of the four
gospels: Matthew and Luke.
The gospel of Matthew opens with the genealogy of Jesus. It traces his ancestry
from his father Joseph through David to Abraham. The main point of the genealogy
is to show that Jesus was a descendent of King David. 1 This was supposed to have
been a fulfillment of an Old Testament passage which prophesized that the messiah
will be descended from that famed Jewish king of antiquity:
II Samuel 7:12-13
When your days [i.e. Davids] are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I
will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will
establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the
throne of his kingdom forever.

After the genealogy, the focus is shifted to Mary, a woman pledged to be married to
Joseph. Before they had had any sexual relations, Joseph found out Mary was
pregnant, or as the gospel puts it with child through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:19).
He wanted to terminate the engagement but had a dream that night which made him
change his mind. In that dream, an angel appeared to him, informing him of Marys
miraculous conception. This virginal conception was in fulfillment of another Old
Testament prophecy (Isaiah 7:14). Convinced that his dream was a message from
God, Joseph married the pregnant girl and when the child was born, named him Jesus.
Matthew mentioned that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea. The whole narrative
up to now gives no hint that Joseph and Mary were from anywhere else except
Bethlehem.
After Jesus was born, wise men from the east (Matthew 2:2) came to
Jerusalem to look for the newborn king of the Jews. They mentioned that they had
seen a star in the east that led them to Judea. Their enquiries reached the ears of King
Herod the Great. He was worried about this possible threat to his throne and
summoned the chief priests and the teachers of the law to enquire from them where
the messiah will be born. They told him Bethlehem was the ordained placed for it
was prophesied in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2). Herod then told the wise men to
look for the newborn and to inform him of the babys whereabouts on the pretext that
he too would want the worship the new king of the Jews. So the wise men went to
Bethlehem where they found the baby Jesus. Consistent with his story, the wise men
found Jesus in Josephs and Marys house (Matthew 2:11). Upon seeing the baby the
wise men gave him gifts of gold, incense and myrrh 2 and worshipped him. They then
went back to their own country by another route, having being warned by an angel in
a dream not to go back to Herod.
1

Fenton, Saint Matthew: p36

It is probably from these three presents that tradition counted three wise men.
53

Now an angel appeared to Joseph, again in a dream, telling him to take his
family to Egypt, which he did. This was done to save the baby from the murderous
schemes of Herod. For Herod, realizing that the wise men had outwitted him, had
given orders to slaughter all the baby boys less than two years of age in and around
Bethlehem. After Herod died, Joseph took his family from Egypt back to Judea.
However, when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in his fathers stead, he went to
Galilee instead.
Matthew now quoted two passages from the Old Testament to show that, here
too, what happened was in fulfillment of the scriptures. He quoted from Hosea 11:1
for the calling of Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus from Egypt and from Jeremiah 31:5
for the prophecy of the slaughter of the babies by Herod. The nativity story in
Matthew ends with the author telling us that Joseph and Mary settled down in the
town of Nazareth in Galilee.
Lukes story of the nativity narrates two parallel birth stories: one of Jesus and
one of John the Baptist. The account kicks off with the annunciation of the birth of
John the Baptist to Zechariah, his father-to-be. When Elizabeth, Zechariahs wife,
was six months pregnant, the angel Gabriel appeared to a virgin in Nazareth named
Mary. The angel announced to her that she was to be the mother of Jesus, the son of
the most high. (Luke 1:32). Mary, seeing that she was a virgin, asked how this was
to be. The angel explained that she will be conceived by the power of the most
high. Mary then acquiesced by saying, I am the servant of the Lord, may it be to
me as you have said.
Mary, impregnated by the Holy Spirit, then visited her relative Elizabeth, who
was herself pregnant. It was during this visit that she sang her famous hymn, The
Magnificat. She stayed at her cousins place for three months. After Mary left,
Elizabeth gave birth to John. Thus according to Luke, Jesus was the second cousin of
John the Baptist.
Whereas Matthew had Joseph and Mary already living in Bethlehem when she
became pregnant, in Luke, both Joseph and Mary were natives of Nazareth. The
reason why they had to go to Bethlehem, according to Luke was due to the Roman
census under Quirinius:
Luke 2:1-2
Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that
all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius
was governor of Syria

According to Luke this census required everyone to register not in their present
hometown but in the hometown of their ancestor. And since Joseph, so says Luke,
was descended from David, he had to go back to Bethlehem, the town of David, to be
registered. And so off he went, taking his heavily pregnant wife with him. When
they reached Bethlehem Mary started having her contractions. Not being able to find
any place in the inn, Mary probably gave birth to Jesus in a stable, for the gospel
makes reference to Jesus being put in a manger (Luke 2:7), which is a container used
for feeding animals.
That night an angel appeared to some shepherds who were keeping watch over
their flocks. He announced the news of Jesus birth to them. On hearing this, they
54

hurried to the place where Jesus was born. After seeing the baby, they went about
telling people about their experience.
Luke then described the customary Jewish rituals that Jesus went through: he
was circumcised on the 8th day, and presented to the Temple in Jerusalem on the 40th
day. After all this, Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus left Judea and went back to Nazareth.
Both the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke share some things in common for
sure: the birth in Bethlehem, the virginal conception and birth, the names of Jesus
parents (Mary and Joseph) and the eventual move to the town of Nazareth. However,
even in the above cursory presentation of the two nativities one can sense the
differences between them. In Matthew, we are presented with the wise men, the Star
of Bethlehem and Herods slaughter of the innocents. In Luke we are presented with
the census of Quirinius, the birth in the stable, the visitation of the shepherds and the
customary Jewish ceremony. The traditional Christian view is that the two
evangelists were selectively describing separate events that happened during the
nativity. A skeptic may well ask: were they telling different aspects within the same
historical event or were they relying on separate, mutually contradictory, traditions on
Jesus birth? And are the individual stories or episodes historical or are they just
myths? It is with these questions that we concern ourselves for the rest of this
chapter.

THE GENEALOGIES
As was mentioned earlier, Matthew started his gospel by giving the genealogy of
Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17) from Jesus to Abraham. Luke also gave a genealogy of Jesus,
tracing it all the way to Adam. (Luke 3:23-38). Both these genealogies trace Jesus
ancestry from Josephs side. By comparing the two genealogies, an obvious difficulty
arises: they are not the same! The names given in Luke from Joseph to David do not
corroborate with that given in Matthew. In fact, the genealogies disagree even on the
name of Josephs father:
Matthew 1:16
Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was
born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23
Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being
the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.
So according to Matthew, Josephs father was Jacob but according to Luke he was
Heli! The discrepancies do not stop here. Since the messiah being a descendent of
David is the reason why there is a need for these genealogies in the first place, we
find that the two gospels cant even agree as to which of Davids sons Jesus was
descended from. Matthew says he is descended through Davids son and successor,
Solomon. Luke contradicts this by noting that he was descended through another son,
Nathan.3

Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p121

55

Table 11.1 on the next page summarizes in tabular form the generations from
Jesus to David as given by both gospels. 4 A quick glance at the table will reveal the
glaring inconsistencies in both lists. From Joseph to David, with the exception of
Shealtiel and Zerubbabel5, none of the other names coincide! And worse, Luke has 43
generations from David to Jesus, Matthew lists only 28, giving a discrepancy of 15
generations. Assuming an average of 25 to 30 years per generation, this brings the
disparity of about four centuries between the genealogies. 6 In short, to put it bluntly,
the two genealogies contradict one another at almost every turn.
Matthew 1:1-11
1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Jacob
4. Matthan
5. Eleazar
6. Eluid
7. Achim
8. Zadok
9. Azor
10. Eliakim
11. Abiud
12. Zerubbabel
13. Shealtiel

Matthew 1:1-11
(contd)
14. Jechoniah
15. Josiah
16. Amon
17. Manasseh
18. Hezekiah
19. Ahaz
20. Jotham
21. Uzziah
22. Joram
23. Jehoshapat
24. Asa
25. Abijah
26. Rehoboam
27. Solomon
28. David

Luke 3:23-31
1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Heli
4. Matthat
5. Levi
6. Melchi
7. Jannai
8. Joseph
9. Mattathias
10. Amos
11. Nahum
12. Esli
13. Naggai
14. Maath
15. Mattathias
16. Semein
17. Josech
18. Joda
19. Joanan
20. Rhesa
21. Zerubbabel
22. Shealtiel

Luke 3:23-31 (contd)

23. Neri
24. Melchi
25. Addi
26. Cosam
27. Elmadam
28. Er
29. Joshua
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Matthat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Judah
36. Joseph
37. Joanm
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menna
41. Mattatha
42. Nathan
43. David

Table 11.1: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke

Throughout the centuries many ingenious attempts has been made by Christians to
overcome this obvious contradiction.

APOLOGETIC ATTEMPT #1:

THE LEVIRATE
4

Fenton, Saint Matthew: p36

The names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel really could not have been omitted by both
evangelists given the strong connection of those names with the return from exile (Ezra
5:2)
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p19
Guignebert, Jesus: p113
56

The first explanation is that the two lists do give the genealogy from Josephs side but
one lists the legal heritage while the other gives the natural or biological descent.
This, they say, is due to the Jewish religious custom of the levirate (Deuteronomy
25:5-10). The levirate decrees that if a man died without leaving any offspring, it is
the duty of the deceased mans brother to impregnate his brothers wife to give the
former offspring to perpetuate the family line. In this system, the living brother is
biologically but the dead brother is legally the father of the baby. In other words, the
rights and obligations of the newborn are with respect to the deceased legal parent.
Using this law the ancient apologists claimed that one line of the genealogy gives the
actual legal father, the other gives the natural father (from the levirate). The difficulty
with this explanation is obvious, we are to suppose that the levirate affected all the
generations except two (Schealtiel and Zerubbabel) from David to Jesus. As Charles
Guignebert (1867-1939), who was Professor of History of Christianity in the
Sorbonne, concluded, such an explanation is clearly absurd.7
Another apologetic attempt comes from the third century Christian writer Julius
Africanus (c160-c240). According to Africanus, Jacob (Josephs father as given in
Matthew) and Heli (Josephs father as given in Luke) were brothers. When Heli died
childless, Jacob impregnated his sister-in-law, and presto!, both Heli and Jacob are
Josephs fathers; Heli being the legal father while Jacob the biological father via the
levirate. The obvious question then is: why do these two brothers have different
fathers? Helis father is Matthat and Jacobs father is Matthan. Africanus solution
here is typical apologetic nonsense: he claimed that Jacob and Heli were half
brothers!8 They shared the same mother who after the death of her first husband,
Matthan, remarried this time to Matthat! The explanation is rather strange and sounds
unreal. Did Africanus supply any proof of this? No, but evidence to the early
Christians is of no consequence. As Africanus himself wrote:
This may or may not be the truth of the matter; but in my opinion and that of every
fair minded person no one else could give a clearer exposition, and we must content
ourselves with it even if it is unconfirmed, as we are not in a position to suggest a
better or truer one. In any case the gospel record is true.9

Thus was how the inconsistency was reconciled in ancient times; with convoluted
explanations based on hypothetical levirate and second marriages. This ex-planation
was eventually abandoned by the Christian apologists.

APOLOGETIC ATTEMPT #2:

LUKES GENEALOGY IS TRACED THROUGH MARYS ANCESTRY
Around the end of 15th century Annius of Viterbo suggested another alternative
explanation to this discrepancy. This explanation maintains that the genealogy in
7
8

Guignebert, Jesus: p113

Actually Africanus claimed was that Matthan and Melchi were half brothers. His
Lukan genealogy probably lacked the names Matthat and Levi. [see Skausaune &
Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus: p355-356]
Eusebius, History of the Church: 1:7
57

Matthew applied to Joseph while the one in Luke applied to Mary! This explanation
does not hold water. In the first place both gospels state explicitly that they are
tracing Jesus ancestors from Josephs side (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23-see above). In
fact Luke, the one the apologists claim traces the ancestry from Mary, always refers to
Joseph whenever he talks about ancestry of David:
Luke 1:26-27
Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee,
named Nazareth, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David.
Luke 2:4
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city
of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of
David

Furthermore Luke, by making Mary the relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), whom he
gave as a descendent of priestly family of Aaron 10 (Luke 1:5) immediately makes
Mary a member of that family.
In the second place the Jews do not admit to transmission of birthright by the
mother, as St. Jerome rightly said, It is not the custom of the scriptures to count
women in their genealogies. Thus a genealogy traced from Marys side is of no
value in determining the descent from David. 11 The fact that this discredited medieval
explanation is still the same one used by some believers today only serves to
underline the bankrupt state of evangelical/fundamentalist Christian theology.

OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THE GENEALOGY

The contradictions remain. Some conservative commentators have tried to explain
away this problem by saying that we should still give the genealogies the benefit of
the doubt because there are other ancient contemporaneous genealogies that are
authentic and that great care was taken to preserve these. However this defense does
not cut it. At best it explains the importance of genealogies in the ancient world and
why both Matthew and Luke, independently, felt compelled to present one for Jesus.
It does not explain away the discrepancies.12
So, at best, only one of these genealogies can be true, at worst, both could be
false. Can we find out one way or the other? Yes we can!
Let us look at Matthews genealogy first. For reasons unknown to us today, but
probably with some important spiritual significance for the author and his readers,
Matthew presents an impressive piece of numerology concerning the ancestors of
Jesus:
Matthew 1:17
10
11
12

Aaron, according to tradition, the brother of Moses was the first member of the
priestly line, all descendents from Aaron were also appointed priests (Exodus 28)
Guignebert, Jesus: p107,114
Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p122
58

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from
David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to
Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.

From David to the exile ends with Jeconiah. The numerical significance perhaps
lies in Matthew trying to show that every fourteen generations something spectacular
happens: for fourteen generations after Abraham was David and fourteen generations
after that was the exile and so fourteen generations after the exile the messiah was
born. There is probably something symbolic in the number 14 and it could be that 14
is 7 x 2, and 7 is a number that appears very often in Matthew. 13 All this sounds
impressive. To help in our analysis, Table 11:2 below gives the names in Matthews
list in tabular form.
From Abraham to David
(Matthew 1:2-6a)
1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judah
5. Perez
6. Hezron
7. Ram
8 Amminadab
9. Nahshon
10. Salmon
11. Boaz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David

From David to the Exile

(Matthew 1:6b-11)
1. David
2. Solomon
3. Rehoboam
4. Abijah
5. Asa
6. Jehoshapat
7. Joram
8. Uzziah
9. Jotham
10. Ahaz
11. Hezekiah
12. Manasseh
13. Amon
14. Josiah
15. Jechoniah

From the Exile to Christ

(Matthew 1:12-16)
1. Jechoniah
2. Shealtiel
3. Zerubbabel
4. Abiud
5. Eliakim
6. Azor
7. Zadok
8. Achim
9. Eluid
10. Eleazar
11. Matthan
12. Jacob
13. Joseph
14. Jesus

Table 11.2: Fourteen Generations

Whether Matthew meant generations in the sense of counting the number of
names or whether it is in terms of begats (i.e. A begats B who begats C has three
names but two begats) his scheme doesnt really work. For in terms of names we do
have fourteen from Abraham to David and from the exile (Jechoniah) to Jesus but we
have fifteen names from David to the exile (Jechoniah). It does not help if we take
generations to mean begats for now we have only thirteen generations for
Abraham to David and from the exile to Jesus. Note also that this problem is not
solved by removing names which are counted twice (David and Jechoniah), for if
these are remove David from the second column and Jechoniah from the third column
we have 14-14-13. In essence we have 41 names when we need 42. Whichever way
we look at it, the scheme is not 14-14-14.14

13

14

7 demons (Matthew 12:45), 7 loaves (Matthew 15:34), 7 baskets (Matthew 15:37), 7x

forgiveness (Matthew 18:21), 7 brothers (Matthew 22:25) & 7 woes (Matthew 23)
Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p60, 122
Miller, Born Divine: p79
59

Furthermore, Matthew has been less than honest in making the genealogy fit his
numerological scheme. In the second list of fourteen generations (from David to
Jeconiah) we have the seemingly innocent verse:
Matthew 1:8
Joram became the father of Uzziah.

These are the seventh and eighth name in the second column of table 11.2 above.
Matthew had skipped three generations from Joram to Uziah to keep his nicely
balanced numerology. For we know from the Old Testament that Joram was actually
the great great grandfather of Uzziah:
II Kings 8:24 (II Chronicles 22:1)
Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David;
and Ahaziah his son reigned in his place.
II Kings 11:2 (II Chronicles 22:11)
... Joash the son of Ahaziah...
II Kings 14:1 (II Chronicles 25:1)
... Amaziah the son of Joash
II Chronicles 26:1 (II Kings 15:1)
All the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him
king in the room of his father Amaziah

So the actual genealogical relationship between Joram and Uzziah is Joram-AhaizahJoash-Amaziah-Uzzaih. Matthew has left out three generations (Ahaziah, Joash and
Amaziah) to make the genealogy conform to his numerology.
There is another mistake in Matthews list:
Matthew 1:11
Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the exile to
Babylon.

Jeconiah is just another form of the name Jehoiachin and we know from the Old
Testament that Josiah was Jeconiahs grandfather:
II Kings 23:34 (II Chronicles 36:4)
Pharaoh Necoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his
father, and changed his name to Jehoiakim

60

II Kings 24:6 (II Chronicles 36:8)

So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; and Jehoiachin [=Jechoniah] his son reigned in
his place.

The genealogy is Josiah-Jehoiakim-Jechoniah; Matthew had left out the middle name.
Again this name was probably left out to make the whole list fit his numerological
scheme.
Now if we include all the names that Matthew missed out, we get fourteen
generations from Abraham to David, and we get eighteen generations from David
(but not counting David again) to the exile (to Jechoniah and not counting his name
for the next section) and only thirteen generations from the exile to Jesus. Neither a
pretty nor satisfying numerological relationship!15
The conclusion regarding Matthews handling of the genealogy is most aptly
stated by Guignebert:
It is not a case of accidental forgetfulness or casual inaccuracy; the redactor has
simply cut out anything that interfered with the regular pattern of the symbolic
structure by which he professed to prove that Jesus had fulfilled the divine
promises made to his ancestor Abraham, and had accomplished the sacred destiny
of the race of David. The prosaic facts of history mattered little to him. 16

While the early genealogies had their source in the Old Testament, the generations
after the exile from Abiud to Joseph is taken from a source no longer known to us.
Bearing in mind the way Matthew used available material it is not impossible that
some of these names could well be fictitious.
Let us now have a look at Lukes genealogy. Lukes list is in reverse order
compared to Matthew. While Matthew started with Abraham and worked his way
down to Jesus, Luke started his Jesus and worked his way up to Adam. In Luke 3:3536, it is stated that Shelah was the son of Cainan who, in turn, was the son of
Arphaxad:
Luke 3:35-36
... the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad,...

Thus according to Luke, Shelah was the grandson of Arphaxad. However, the
Hebrew Old Testament explicitly stated that Arphaxad was the father of Shelah.
Genesis 10:24
Arpachshad became the father of Shelah....

Only in the Greek Septuagint do we find the name Cainan inserted between Arphaxad
and Shelah.

15

16

Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p777-778

Guignebert, Jesus: p109-110
Miller, Born Divine: p77-81
Guignebert, Jesus: p110
61

There is however another name that did not appear in any extant text known to
us, i.e. neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in the Greek Septuagint. That name appears in
Luke 3:27, Rhesa
Luke 3:27
the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel

Rhesa, in the above passage is the father of Joanan and the son of Zerubbabel. This
makes Joanan the grandson of Zerubbabel. Now Joanan is just another form of the
name Hananiah and we know from the Old Testament that he was the son of
Zerubbabel.
I Chronicles 3:19
The sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, and Hananiah [=Joanan]...

There is no such person as Rhesa and Luke had simply inserted another generation to
the list.
It remains an open question whether Lukes mistakes in inserting the names of
Rhesa and Cainan were accidental or purposeful. It should be noted that the number
of generations from God to Jesus in Lukes list is 77 and we know that the messianic
number is 7. So perhaps Luke, like Matthew, dabbled in numerology.
Matthew traces Jesus lineage through the Davidic kings, so we can compare his
list with those from the books of Kings. Luke on the other hand has a list, with the
exception of Nathan (son of David), Zerubbabel, Shealtiel and Joseph, consisting of
totally unknown names. We do not know where Luke got these names from. It should
also be mentioned that even with known names we have discrepancies between the
two lists. In Matthew the father of Shealtiel was given as Jeconiah [Jehoaichin], in
Luke the father is given as Neri.17
Let us conclude what we have found out about the genealogies. Some of the
names in the genealogies are taken out from the Old Testament. Even from this
known source, we find that both Matthew and Luke used the source rather freely to fit
it into their theological schemes. Where the source in unknown we find they
contradict one another. The conclusion is obvious: both the genealogies are works of
fiction.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Both Matthew and Luke stated that Jesus conception was not a commonplace one. In
these gospels Mary was a virgin who became pregnant, not through sexual
intercourse, but through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:34-

17

Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p938

Caird, Saint Luke: p19
Guignebert, Jesus: p110
Miller, Born Divine: p73-75
62

35). The gospel of Matthew explicitly mentioned that this virgin pregnancy 18 took
place in fulfillment of the scriptures:
Matthew 1:22-23
Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord
through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God
with us.

Matthew is quoting the book of Isaiah (7:14) from the Septuagint. The word for
virgin is rendered in the Greek Bible as parthenos. This word carries the explicit
meaning of virgin. However, if we are to look at the Bible in its original Hebrew,
from the masoretic text, the word used there is almah. Now the nearest English
translation for almah is a young woman and does not carry with it any strong
connotation of virginity. To show how far almah is from the meaning of virginity, I
have quoted below some passages from the Old Testament where the word was used:
Genesis 20:17
Abraham prayed to God. God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his female
servants [almah], and they bore children. For Yahweh had closed up tight all the
wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah, Abrahams wife.
Genesis 21:12-13
God said to Abraham, Dont let it be grievous in your sight because of the boy,
and because of your handmaid [almah]. In all that Sarah says to you, listen to her
voice. For from Isaac will your seed be called. I will also make a nation of the son
of the handmaid [almah], because he is your seed.

The word almah was used in the above passages to refer to a female slave. In Genesis
21:12-13, the almah referred to was Hagar who had already borne Abraham a son
(Genesis 16:15). Let us look at two more passages in which the word almah is used. I
will leave the word untranslated, so the reader will get a direct sense of its meaning by
reading the sentence.
Songs of Solomon 6:8
There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and almah without number.
Proverbs 30:18-19
There are three things which are too amazing for me, four which I dont
understand: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent on a rock; the way
of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with an almah.

In these two passages we have almah as an occupant of a harem and as the object of a
mans physical sexual attention. Obviously the passages above could not have been
referring to virgins. So while the use of the Hebrew word can sometimes mean a
18

Recently Robert Miller, Professor of Religion at Juniata College, has argued in this
book Born Divine: The births of Jesus and other sons of God (Polebridge 2003) that a
careful, unprejudiced, reading of Matthew reveals that the first gospel never suggested a
virgin birth! (p195-206).
63

young girl of marriageable age, as for instance, when it is applied to Rebecca before
her marriage to Isaac (Genesis 24:43), it is also used to mean a slave woman and
sometimes even for women in a harem.
If the author of Isaiah wanted to make clear the prophecy was meant for a virgin
birth, he would not have used the word almah for all the ambiguity that it entails. He
would have chosen the Hebrew word that does explicitly mean a virgin: bethulah.
This word would have been the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek parthenos. The
Greek equivalent for almah should actually be neanis, which means young woman.
Matthews assertion of the virgin birth being prophesied in the scripture is
therefore based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for a young woman. The
virgin birth is nowhere prophesied in the original Hebrew. 19
In fact, if we look at the passage in Isaiah within its entire context, it looks even
more unlikely to be any sort of a messianic prophecy. It arose in a conversation
between the prophet Isaiah and Ahaz, the King of Judah. It was a time of national
danger and the king feared a new attack from the alliance of Syria and Israel. The
two combined force had just failed to take Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1). Isaiah wanted to
assure Ahaz that God is on Judahs side. From this point on let us follow the biblical
narrative:
Isaiah 7:10-17
Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign of Yahweh your God; ask it
either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither
will I tempt Yahweh. He said, Listen now, house of David: Is it not enough for
you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God also?
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the almah will conceive,
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat butter and honey
when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child knows
to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall
be forsaken. Yahweh will bring on you, on your people, and on your fathers house,
days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the
king of Assyria.

Trying to fit Jesus into the passage above is impossible. What does the prophet mean
when he said that the savior will eat butter and honey? Or that there was a time in
Jesus life when he does a not know how to refuse the evil and choose the good? Yet
the prophecy above is obviously meant to be taken as a whole.
The whole passage suggests that the prophecy had a more immediate meaning. It
is enough to note the section I have italicized above, which connects the child to be
born with the immediate events (i.e. the defeat of the two kings). The prophecy was
obviously meant by Isaiah to reassure Ahaz that the kings of Syria and Israel will soon
19

Brown, Birth of the Messiah: p145-148

Cuppitt & Armstrong, Who Was Jesus?: p46
Guignebert, Jesus: p123
Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p122
Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: p19
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p19, 48
64

be defeated or rendered powerless. In modern terms the prophecy will go something

like this:
If a woman gets married today and conceives a child, from now until his birth [i.e.
around nine months] conditions will be so much improved [butter and honey] that
he will be able to be given a name that signifies a good omen, Immanuel or God is
with us. And by the time the child begins to understand and distinguish between
good and bad [around two to three years] the two enemies of King Ahaz will be
vanquished by the king of Assyria.

The emphasis of the prophecy of Isaiah was not on the mode of conception of the
child but on the speediness in which king Ahazs enemies will be defeated. The child
was used as a chronological benchmark, so to speak, for the Judean king to
confidently estimate the timing of the approaching events.
In fact the child being prophesied was probably 20 the one referred to in the next
chapter:
Isaiah 8:3-4
And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord
said to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz; for before the child knows how to
cry My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria
will be carried away before the king of Assyria.

Immanuel was obviously a symbolic name, after all the Christians were never
bothered that Jesus was not called by that name. But the name of the child above
Mahershalalhashbaz, is significant here, for it is another symbolic name which means
haste-spoil, speed-booty; it connotes the calamity which was to befall the kings of
Israel and Syria, is the exact opposite of Immanuel, which connotes the converse
fortune for Judah. And before the child can utter mama and papa, Ahazs
enemies will be defeated: exactly what was predicted in Isaiah 7:10-17.
It is therefore obvious that the passage from Isaiah viewed in its full context has
nothing to do with Jesus or any messianic prophecy. Only by taking the passage out
of context and by the mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah could it be finally
twisted to refer to Jesus. In short, there was no Old Testament prophesy of the virgin
birth.21
The question arises: did Matthew invent the story of the virgin birth based on
the mistranslation of Isaiah or did he or some other early Christian read into Isaiah a
20

21

Raymond Brown in his book The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1993) disagreed
that the prophets wife is the almah being referred to in Isaiah 7:14. However the
Catholic theologian admitted that the prophecy is essentially one that uses the upcoming
birth of a baby as a chronological benchmark for the defeat of Ahazs enemies. (see
The Birth of Messiah, p147-148)
Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p531-533
Brown, Birth of the Messiah: p145-148
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p36-37
Cadoux, The Life of Jesus: p27-30
Guignebert, Jesus: p122
Miller, Born Divine: p93-94
65

tradition that was already circulating among the believers at that time Matthew was
written around the end of the first century CE? The former is unlikely as Luke seems
to have written about the virgin birth independently of Matthew. Hence it is more
likely that Matthew was writing down (and perhaps embellishing it with additional
details from his own creative mind) what was community tradition regarding Jesus
circulating among the believers at that time.
Parthenogenesis or virgin birth is, among human beings, to say the least, an
extremely unlikely occurrence. This is not to reject the idea out of hand but simply to
point out that anyone making such a claim is making an extraordinary assertion. The
burden of proof lies squarely with the party that asserts that such an event had
occurred in history. And extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. We have
seen that the Bible can contain error, inconsistencies and downright falsehoods, it is
therefore not enough to assert that just because it is in the Bible it must be true.
Let us now get back to the virgin birth. Now most of the people who knew Jesus
during his ministry knew him as an adult, so they are pretty useless as witnesses in
this case. From the people who should have known him before his ministry, we get a
reaction that positively suggests that the miracle of parthenogenesis never happened.
For example, as Mark reveals, when Jesus started preaching, his family, including his
mother, went to call him back because they thought he was out of his mind (Mark
3:21). Now why on earth would Mary, of all people, think her son out of his mind
when he started preaching when she had been a willing and knowing party to the first
miracle in the messiahs life? What about the people whom Jesus grew up with? They
were the next best candidates to have knowledge about his special birth. What did
they do when he started preaching? According to Mark they rejected his teachings
(Mark 6:1-6).
In fact the earliest sources on Jesus are silent on the issue of the virgin birth; we
see nothing in Pauls letters (AD51-64) and Marks gospel (cAD70) about Jesus
miraculous conception. This silence is actually strong testimony against the
historicity of the virgin birth. For both Mark and Paul were convinced believers and
had it occurred or had they heard about it, they would surely have written something
about it. In fact a natural reading (i.e. without any theological preconception) of
Pauls letter to the Galatians showed that the apostle to the gentiles believed Jesus
came into the world like everyone else:
Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman,
born under the law.

The message conveyed by Paul here is that Jesus was a normal Jewish child called by
God.22
Our next early source is from the Jewish Christians, the Nazarenes or Ebionites.
The Jewish Christians never accepted the story of the virgin birth. We know this
through references of their beliefs by the early church fathers such as Justin Martyr,
Jerome, Irenaeus and Origen. 23 Now we know from how myths developed that stories
22

23

Cadoux, The Life of Jesus: p27

Guignebert, Jesus: p119
Maccoby, Revolution In Judea: p286
66

tend to get more fantastic upon retelling not the other way round. Thus that the
Jewish Christians disbelief in the virgin birth is strong evidence that they were
adhering to an older, unembellished tradition. Furthermore we have strong reasons to
believe that the Nazarenes or Ebionites were the theological descendents of James, the
brother of Jesus. It is this group of Christians, more than any other group, that could
have claimed to be direct eyewitnesses to the events in Jesus life. 24
Thus from a critical standpoint the virgin birth is not history but myth.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF VIRGIN BIRTH

It is also important to note that apart from the fact that the virgin birth was not
prophesied in the Old Testament, but as an asexual form of reproduction, it is also an
idea that is foreign Jewish theology. There are six times in the Old Testament where
God is described as miraculously helping in the conception of a child but at no time
does it mean the absence of sexual intercourse. In Genesis 17:15-21; 21:1-3 God
helped the 90 year old Sarah, long past child bearing age, conceive giving birth to
Isaac. But sexual relations between Sarah and Abraham are clearly assumed. In
Genesis 29:30-32, Leah was cured of her infertility by God, and again here the
implication is that she had sexual relations with her husband Jacob. Similarly
Rebecca, Rachel and Hannah became pregnant because God answered their prayers
(Genesis 25:21, 30:22, I Samuel 1:10-11, 19-20). In the story of Samson (Judges 13),
Gods intervention in his birth also assumes normal intercourse between the husband
and wife.25
However when we look over at the side of the Gentiles, the world where
Christianity was to flourish, we see something completely different. Miraculous
virgin birth and divine incarnation are common place ideas. For example in the Greek
myth, Perseus was born of the virgin Danae. Danae was conceived by the God Zeus
who took the form of a shower of gold.26
And in almost all the popular mystery religions 27, the beliefs of the uneducated
masses, the divine personalities are born of virgins. For example, Mithra, a derivative
of the Persian sun-worship, whose cult rivaled Christianity during the first few
centuries of its existence, was conceived when God himself, in the form of light,
entered a virgin. Phoenecian mythology had Adonis being born of the virgin Myrrh.
Parthenogenesis was also the explanation for the birth of the Phyrgian deity, Attis
from his mother Cybele.28
The popular culture also ascribed to many famous men miraculous, divine and,
sometimes, even virgin birth. Thus the emperor Augustus, the reigning sovereign
during the time of Jesus, was reputedly miraculously begotten when a snake
descended upon his mother in the temple of Apollo. So too, Romulus, the legendary
24

25
26

27
28

See my website http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulorigin.html for more

information on the development of early Christianity.
Miller, Born Divine: p235-236
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p33-34
The pagan religions were referred to as mystery religions because they took the form
of mysteries which were only revealed to the initiated.
Freke & Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: p37
67

founder of Rome, was born of a vestal virgin. Alexander the Great was conceived,
according to popular tradition, by a bolt of lightning that descended upon his mother.29
How was the bridge formed between these two alien cultures with differing
views of divine intervention in childbirth? The answer lies in one phrase, common to
both cultures, but understood differently: son of God.
In the Jewish world the term son of God does not carry with it the idea of divine
fathering. The term can be found in numerous passages in the Old Testament. In II
Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7, David is referred to as Gods son. In Isaiah 45:11 and
Hosea 11:1, the term is used to describe the Israelites in general. In Jewish
apocryphal literature we find that even a righteous person can be called a son of God
(Wisdom of Solomon 2:10-20, Sirach 4:10). From there, we can gather that the term
can be applied to kings, righteous men and even Israelites in general. Thus the term in
Jewish theology is an honorific title. We find this influence very clearly in early
Jewish Christianity, when Paul repeats what was probably taught to him by James and
Peter:
Romans 1:3-4
[C]oncerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of
holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord

Read the passage very carefully. This is one of the earliest extant Christological
statements, earlier than those in gospels - which were all written twenty to sixty years
after this. Here we are told that Jesus was appointed (i.e. declared) the son of God
by his resurrection. He became son of God not at birth but after his resurrection.
There is no hint of a divine begetting.30
The term son of God is also very widely used in the Hellenistic world but with a
completely different meaning. For here, as we have seen from the examples above, it
really does literally mean fathered by a god. Thus we find Alexander, Augustus,
Romulus, Hercules, Plato and Pythagoras were all called sons of God because their
fathers were believed to be gods!31
Thus this shared phraseology allowed the jump of understanding Jesus title
from the Jewish honorific concept into the pagan concept of actually being fathered
by God. With this equation, it is inevitable that in the vulgar Greco-Roman culture where mystery religions, Greek mythologies and general cultural tendencies tend to
assume that a persons greatness is a sign of divine origin - the person of Jesus, a
Jewish son of God was transformed into a Hellenistic one.32
The conclusion regarding the virgin birth is inescapable: it has no historical
foundation and arose as an infusion of pagan mythology into early Christianity

29

30
31
32

Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p33

Knight, Honest to Man: p119
Knight, Humanist Anthology: p29
Miller, Born Divine: p138-144
Miller, Born Divine: p223-228
Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p72-73
Guignebert, Jesus: p122
68

facilitated by a common, but differently understood, phrase, son of God, in both

cultures.

THE MYTH OF MARYS PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

Apart from a belief in the virgin birth, two main branches of Christianity, the Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, hold that Mary remained a virgin for life.
Note that this belief does not simply say Mary never had sex throughout her whole
life. It also maintains that Marys hymen remained intact even after her birth! This is
what the Catechism of the Catholic Church 499 says about the matter:
The deepening of the faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess
Marys real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God
made man. In fact, Christs birth did not diminish his mothers virginal integrity
but sanctified it.33

Apart from this obvious impossibility, a natural reading of the gospels will show that
none of their authors ascribed to Mary a perpetual virginity. Let us look at a couple of
passages from Matthew and Luke.
Matthew 1:24-25
Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and
took his wife to himself; and didnt know her sexually until she had brought forth
her son. He named him Jesus.
Luke 2:6-7
It happened, while they [Joseph and Mary] were there, that the day had come that
she should give birth. She brought forth her firstborn son

From the above it is implied that Joseph did have sex with Mary after the birth of
Jesus and that there were subsequent children born to these two. After all to say that
you did not do A until B happened would naturally suggest that you did do A
afterwards. And to call a child the first born from the vantage point of Luke (i.e. who
wrote around 60 to 70 years after the death of Jesus) means that Joseph and Mary
subsequently had more children. As the New Testament scholar Charles Guignebert
asserted: the term first bornimmediately suggests the birth of younger
children.34
This dovetails nicely with the information from the gospels and the epistles of
Paul that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The passage below from Mark tells us that
Jesus had a large family, at least four brothers and two sisters, when he makes the
people of Nazareth ask of Jesus:

33
34

Quoted in Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p12

Guignebert, Jesus: p130
69

Mark 6:3 (Matthew 13:55) [also Mark 3:31-32 (Matthew 12:46-50)]

Isnt this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judah, and
Simon? Arent his sisters here with us?

Even John, the most mystical of all the gospels, does not deny the fact that Jesus was
not the only child:
John 2:12 [also John 7:3]
After this, he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, his brothers, and his
disciples; and they stayed there a few days.

Pauls epistles also clearly show Jesus had brothers:

Galatians 1:18-19
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and stayed with him
fifteen days. But of the other apostles I saw no one, except James, the Lords
brother.
I Corinthians 9:5
Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the
apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Roman Catholic theologians, of course, have been fighting this obvious and natural
interpretation of the gospel passages with tortuous and ad hoc explanations that will
convince only those who already want to believe. Let us look at some of their
apologetic attempts.
In explaining Matthew 1:24-25, the Catholic theologian Raymond E. Brown in
his book The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday 1993) stated that the Greek usage of
until (Greek: heos hou) often has no implication at all about what happened after
the limit of until was reached. and that The immediate context favors a lack of
future implication here, for Matthew is concerned only with stressing Marys virginity
before the childs birth35 [italics added].
It is important to note this is merely a possibility defense something we have
looked at in chapter 7 of this book. Often does not imply always or even more
often than not. In other words, what he omits to say is that equally often, heos hou
does imply a future event. As for the context of Matthew, this is again a theological
sleight of hand. If Matthew is concerned only in stressing Marys virginity before the
birth of Jesus, this means that Matthew, at best, says nothing about Marys perpetual
virginity. Furthermore since until in Greek or English does sometimes imply a
future event after that until, had Matthew believed in the perpetual virginity of
Mary, he would certainly have chosen to phrase the passage differently in order to
avoid the misinterpretation that Mary ceased being virgin after the birth of Jesus.36
His defense of Luke 2:6-7 is equally ad hoc. The problem here is that there is a
nice Greek word that Luke could have used if he wanted to show that Jesus was
Marys only child: monogenes. That he used instead prototokos (first born) requires
some apologetic shuffling. Citing a Greek tombstone dating to 5 BCE which states
35
36

Brown, Birth of the Messiah: p132

Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p71
70

that a woman died after giving birth to her firstborn, he again stress that the term
firstborn need not imply the birth of subsequent children. And that the reason why
Luke used the term firstborn was because he wanted to show that Jesus had the
privileges and positions that Hebrew culture gives to the eldest child.
Note again that all the above is another possibility defense. Yes, it is possible
that the term firstborn may not imply subsequent children, but more often than not it
does imply this very thing! The additional statement that Luke wanted to show Jesus
had the rights and privileges of the eldest child does not cut it. For an only child is by
definition the eldest and would get the same rights and privileges. Again had Luke
believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary he would have phrased that passage
differently to avoid a misinterpretation based on a natural reading of that term. That
he did not means that the idea of perpetual virginity never occurred to him.
On these defenses we must ask one more question: if the idea of Marys
perpetual virginity is not implied (but according to the Catholic theologians not
explicitly repudiated) in Matthew 1:24-25 and Luke 2:6-7 (and nowhere else in the
New Testament) then where did the idea come from in the first place? As we will see
below it evolved much later than the time of the evangelists.
As to the matter of brothers and sisters there were two traditional explanations
tried by Orthodox (Eastern) and Catholic (Western) branches of Christianity to
reconcile this passages with their own theology. These two explanations are called,
respectively, the Epiphanian View and the Hieronymian view.

The Epiphanian View

The Eastern Church came up with the idea that the brothers and sisters mentioned in
the gospels were children of Joseph from a prior marriage. This explanation became
known as the Epiphanian View, after the 4th century father, Epiphanius (c315-403),
bishop of Salamis.
This view is mainly based on the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James. This
mid second century work of hagiographic piety testifies to the growing fascination
with Marys virginity in early Christianity.37 Joseph was portrayed as an old widower
with children when the chief priest entrusted the twelve year old Mary to his care. For
this is what Joseph said upon being told of this:
Protoevangelium 8:12-1338
And the high priest said, Joseph, you are the person chosen to take the virgin of
the Lord, to keep for him. But Joseph refused, saying I am an old man, and have
children, but she is young, and I fear lest I should appear ridiculous in Israel.

That Mary was a virgin post partum, that is after the birth of the baby Jesus, was
poignantly shown by the following episode. Salome, who was skeptical of Marys

37
38

Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity: p955

The text of the Protoevangelium and well as the chapter and verses are taken from
The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, Meridian Books, New York
1974. (I have slightly updated the archaic English.) Other editions of this may have
different chapter and verse references.
71

continued virginity, was told to try it herself. She did and found her offending hand
withered as a result!
Protoevangelium 14:15-22
And the midwife said to her, Salome, Salome, I will tell you a most surprising
thing which I saw. A virgin has given birth, which is a thing contrary to nature. To
which Salome replied, As the Lord my God lives, unless I receive particular proof
of this matter, I will not believe that a virgin has given birth. Then Salome went in
and the midwife said, Mary, show yourself, for a great controversy is risen
concerning you. And Salome received satisfaction. But her hand was withered and
she groaned bitterly.

The Protoevangelium also claimed James as its author and established him as the
elder brother of Jesus. In the appendix to the work we read this:
Protoevangelium, Appendix
I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem; and when the disturbance was I retired
into the desert place, until the death of Herod.

Origen (c185-254), whose piety extended to him castrating himself after reflecting on
Matthew 19:12, was an early supporter of the Epiphanian view. Citing both the
Protoevangelium (which Origen referred to as The Book of James) and a now lost
portion of The Gospel of Peter, Origen mentioned this in his Commentary on
Matthew:
On Matthew: 10:17
But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is
entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a
former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to
preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end ... And I think it in harmony with
reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in
chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than
to her the first-fruit of virginity.

Another prominent supporter of the Epiphanian view was, of course, Epiphanius

(c315-403) himself. In his Panarion, a medicine chest for use against heresies,
Ephiphanius mentioned that Josephs first wife died after bearing him six children,
with James being the eldest. He also added that Joseph was 80 years old when he was
betrothed to Mary; by then, presumably, he was too old to have sex. (Panarion 78:7:178:8:2)
It seems hardly necessary to refute such a charming fantasy! However for
completeness sake we need to look at why almost everyone looks at this view with
skepticism.
The earliest evidence for this came from the mid second century
Protoevangelium. The Protoevangelium was authored by someone who
obviously had no knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs.
Its narratives are a conflation of the canonical works of Matthew and Luke.
It bears, according to John Painter, deep marks of legendary
72

development. Thus the work is a derivative work of piety written by

someone who was neither an eyewitness nor someone who had any access
to reliable tradition.
As Origens statement above makes clear, the purpose for accepting this
view is purely apologetic in nature. It harmonizes with the then prevailing
view with respect to chastity. This ad hoc nature of the explanation invites
extreme skepticism.
In the gospel of Luke 2:6-7, the idea of Jesus being Marys firstborn loses
much of its force if he was also not Josephs first-born. For inheriting the
kingdom of David must surely go to the eldest in the family. Thus if Jesus
had elder brothers through Josephs previous marriage, Lukes phrase loses
much of its force. The fact that Luke phrased it the way he did can only
mean that he knew of no such tradition, of Jesus having an older brother, at
the time of his writing (c 100 CE).39

The Hieronymian View

Not satisfied with just the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Western Church went a step
further and suggested that Joseph was a virgin as well. Therefore it was no longer
permissible for Joseph to have had sexual intercourse with a hypothetical earlier wife!
Thus the brothers and sisters were claimed to be cousins of Jesus. This cousin
hypothesis was first put forward by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c260-c340). This
suggestion is normally called the Hieronymian View, after Jerome (c342-420), whose
full name was Eusebius Hieronymous, since it was he who fleshed out this
hypothesis.
Jerome did not like the Epiphanian view because it was based, in his opinion, on
spurious works such as The Protoevangelium of James. He sought to derive the idea
of Marys perpetual virginity from canonical sources alone. Jeromes argument, put
forward in his Against Helvidius, written in 383 CE, is a four step process.

First, he cited Paul in Galatians:

Galatians
1:18-19
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and stayed
with him fifteen days. But of the other apostles I saw no one, except
James, the Lords brother.

39

Jerome takes the statement above to mean that James was one of the twelve
apostles.
Second, in the list of the twelve apostles given in Mark 3:13-19 (and
Matthew 10:1-4), there were two Jamess, one being the son of Zebedee
and the other being the son of Alphaeus. Since we know that John the son
of Zebedee could not be James the brother of the Lord, this means that

Bernheim, James, Brother of Jesus: p19-20

Chilton & Neusner, The Brother of Jesus: p13-16
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p66-67
Guignebert, Jesus: p129-130
Painter, Just James: p198-201
73

James the son of Alphaeus was the one known as James, the brother of the
Lord! Obviously since Alphaeus is not Joseph, this leaves the term
brother still unexplained, so there are a couple more steps to go.

Third, in the scene of Jesus crucifixion both Mark and John gave a list of
women who were present there:
Mark 15:40
There were also women watching from afar, among whom were both
Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less
(Greek=mikrou) and of Joses, and Salome
John 19:25
But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his
mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Although modern translations add the wife to Clopas, the original Greek
is missing that term and the phrase could easily be read, ambiguously, as
Mary of Clopas. Jerome understood John 19:25 to mean that Mary of
Clopas was the sister of Jesus mother, also called Mary.
Now Mary of Clopas given in Johns gospel is to be identified with Mary,
the mother of James the Less and Joses given in Marks. As for the identity
of James the Less, Jerome claimed that it makes no sense to call someone
lesser unless there is another greater. The only other greater James was
the son of Zebedee. Now, Jerome added, comparisons of greater and
lesser are done between two people only, not three. Thus this James the
Less, Jerome argued, must be the second James among the apostles. Thus
Mary of Clopas was the mother of James, brother of the Lord.
Therefore these James the Less and Joses, are to be identified with the names
given in Mark 6:3:
Mark 6: 3 (also Matthew 13:55-56)
Isnt this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses,
Judah, and Simon? Arent his sisters here with us? They were offended at
him.

Thus the four names and the two girls were not the children of Jesus
mother, Mary, but her sister, also called Mary!
Finally Jerome explained the use of the term brother. Citing examples
from the Bible, Jerome noted that the term could be taken to mean brother
by nature, by kinship, by race or by love. Thus brother could mean any of
these things, and in this particular reconstruction, it obviously means that
James and the rest were cousins of Jesus, being the children of Marys
sister, Mary. To this is normally added the argument that the Hebrew
language lacks specific nouns for kinfolk. The Hebrew word ah (Aramaic:
aha) can mean brother, stepbrother, cousin, nephew; in general it can mean
any blood relative.
This, in a nutshell, is the Hieronymian view. The construction is, it must be admitted,
intricate and ingenious and it is, in principle, possible. But reminding the reader about
the difference between possibility and probability as shown in chapter 7, the argument
rests on many highly improbable suppositions:
74

Equating Pauls use of the term apostle to be synonymous with the twelve is
highly speculative. For Pauls use of the former term seems to cover a
wider group of followers. He called himself an apostle (I Corinthians 9:13). In I Corinthians 15:5-7 he seems to differentiate between the twelve and
all the apostles. The former having a more restricted use than the latter.
I Corinthians 15:5-7
[A]nd that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to
over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but
some have also fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles.

The identity of James the Less with James the son of Alphaeus is a crucial
link in Jeromes argument, yet it is based purely on conjecture. It is hard to
explain why Mark, who counted James, son of Alphaeus, should fail to
make the identification in relating the son of Mary at the crucifixion to the
apostle.
The Greek tou mikrou more probably means the small rather than the
less. If this indeed is the case, the use of the term in a comparative sense is
nonexistent. Furthermore nowhere in the gospels is James the son of
Zebedee referred to as the greater.
Another necessary supposition is the identity of Mary of Clopas and
Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses. Yet, again, this is pure
conjecture. Jerome himself did not argue too strongly for this, being
content, he wrote, only to assert that Mary the mother of James and Joses
was not Mary, the mother of Jesus. However without that crucial
identification, Jeromes whole argument falters! For the identity of Mary of
Clopas as the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus, provides the whole
foundation of James being the cousin of Jesus.
The vague term Mary of Clopas presents another problem, it could mean
Mary wife of Clopas or Mary mother of Clopas. (Indeed, as I mentioned
above, most modern translations describe Mary as the wife of Clopas.) The
former would be a problem for Jeromes linkage. Although later Catholic
theologians had tried to argue that even if Mary is the wife of Clopas, the
name could be another form of Alphaeus as both could be derived from the
Aramaic form Chalphai. It is by no means certain, of course, that Clopas
and Alphaeus come from the same Aramaic name. Thus it is another
conjecture made to cover up the earlier one. Note how suppositions are
piled upon suppositions!
The suggestion that Mary, mother of Jesus, had a sister also called Mary is,
on the surface absurd. Yet, this is another crucial supposition for Jeromes
argument. Some Catholic theologians have tried to argue that Mary, mother
of Clopas is actually the sister of Joseph and thus is just the sister in law of
Mary, mother of Jesus. Here again, another supposition is added, that
sister can mean sister-in-law.
While it is highly unlikely that siblings would have identical names (this is
Darrell and my other brother Darrell) it is certainly likely that many
75

people during the time of Jesus shared the same names. Relatively few
Jewish names were used during that period. The names Jacob (=James),
Judah (=Jude), Simeon, Joseph (=Joses?) are names of patriarchs and thus
would be expected to be popular during that time. The fact that some
unrelated people have similar names does not provide enough reason to
base a theory of identity on.
Furthermore it is by no means clear that John meant Mary the mother of
Clopas to be an expansion of the sister of Jesus mother. The Greek text
could easily be read as referring to two separate persons: one being Mary
of Clopas and the other being the (unnamed) sister of Mary, mother of
Jesus.
Finally we look at the linguistic argument. The paucity of familial terms in
Hebrew is a red herring, since the New Testament was written in Greek not
Hebrew. In Greek there are separate nouns for brothers and cousins. The
Greek word for brother is adelphos (plural = adelphoi) and for cousin is
anepsios (plural = anepsioi). All the evangelists used adelphoi to describe
his brothers. Had they been convinced that James, Joses, Judas and Simon
were not Jesus brothers, they would have used the word anepsioi to avoid
any confusion. This is especially true for Paul who wrote in Greek for
Gentiles. We see that in Pauls letters to the Galatians he too referred to
James as Jesus brother and to the fact that Jesus had more than one
brother. (See above quote on Galatians 1:18-19 and I Corinthians 9:4) The
Catholic theologian J.P. Meier studied 343 passages in the New Testament
in which the word adelphos appeared. He concluded that, when it is not
used figuratively or metaphorically, it always referred to a biological or
legal relationship between full brothers or half brothers: i.e. not cousins.
The further attempt to claim that in the Septuagint, the word adelphos is
sometimes used to translate for cousin is weak. For the occurrence of
such translation is very rare in the Old Testament and the context normally
remove any ambiguity in the kinship.

It can be seen that the Hieronymian view relies heavily on a series of improbable
conjectures, all of which must be true for the hypothesis to work. Take away one link
and the whole chain breaks. To get the probability of the view being true, the
probability for each difficulty being somehow true is multiplied to the next. If we
allow each of the seven difficulties above (which in itself does not exhaust all the
difficulties with the theory) a 50% chance of being true (a very generous assumption),
the chances of the Heironymian view being correct is less than 1% or less than 1 in
100. Now thats a long shot!
In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Mary remained a virgin
perpetually.40
40

Bernheim, James, Brother of Jesus: p20-29

Chilton & Neusner, The Brother of Jesus: p16-20
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p66-67
Guignebert, Jesus: p129-130
Painter, Just James: p213-220
76

The fact that Catholic theologians still insist on this doctrine should convince all
that reason has very little to do with theology. Looking at the theological
explanations for the genealogies and for the perpetual virginity brings to mind what
the American novelist Frank Yerby (1916-1991) wrote: Theology is a mild form of
insanity.41

THE BIRTHPLACE OF JESUS

Both Matthew and Luke stated that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea. However
the different ways in which both gospels connect Jesus birth to that Judean town
arouse suspicion. In Matthew, the impression we get is that both Mary and Joseph
were already living in Bethlehem during the time of the annunciation and the
conception:
Matthew 1:24-2:1
Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and
took his wife to himself; and didnt know her sexually until she had brought forth
her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of
Judea

Note that no mention is given of any traveling between Joseph taking Mary home as
his wife and the birth of Jesus. In fact anyone reading the nativity story in Matthew
alone will conclude that Joseph and Mary were natives of Bethlehem as is confirmed
by the passage below (after the flight of Joseph and his family to Egypt):
Matthew 2:19-23
But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to
Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go
into the land of Israel, for those who sought the young childs life are dead. He
arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But
when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father,
Herod, he was afraid to go there. Being warned in a dream, he withdrew into the
region of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.

Especially in the view of the earlier passage, the one above gives definite proof that
Joseph wanted to return to his home town of Bethlehem but was prevented from
doing so by the fact that Archelaus was the new tetrarch. His making Nazareth a
home came after this.
In Luke, however, we are told that both Mary and Joseph were living in the
Galilean town of Nazareth before the annunciation:

41

Yerby, Judas, My Brother: p504

77

Luke 1:26-27
Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee,
named Nazareth, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David.

So Luke makes Mary and Joseph natives of Galilee. The event that made them travel
to Bethlehem was the Roman census under Quirinius. According to the evangelist,
the Roman census required all to register in the town of their ancestors. Since David
was from Bethlehem, Joseph had to travel to Judea to register himself .
Luke 2:1-7
Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that
all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius
was governor of Syria. All went to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city.
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city
of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of
David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife,
being pregnant. It happened, while they were there, that the day had come that she
should give birth. She brought forth her firstborn son.

Lukes version is historically suspect for at least three reasons. Firstly while the
Romans do periodically conduct census at different times in various locations, there is
simply no evidence that there ever was a simultaneous worldwide census either under
Caesar Augustus or anyone else.
Secondly the method of taking the census, by herding everyone to register in the
towns of their ancestors, is unheard of in the history of the Roman Empire. The
Roman censuses were always taken for economic purposes, to determine the amount
of taxable income of the residents of their provinces. These censuses were taken at
the place of residence not the ancestral hometown. Furthermore, the census, if
conducted in the manner described by Luke, was extremely impracticable: each and
every Israelite will have to recall the residence of their ancestors who lived when
Joshua partitioned the land of Palestine among the twelve tribes, i.e. an event that
occurred more than 1,000 years before the census! And why would Joseph haul Mary
along with him to Bethlehem, when she was already in an advanced stage of
pregnancy? The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is about 100 kilometers and
would have taken an exhausting ten days or so on donkey-back. The fact that Mary
was not even required for the census further compounds this problem.
Thirdly while there was one historical census when Quirinius was governor of
Syria it happened ten years after the death of King Herod. But according to both
Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the great (Matthew 2:1,
Luke 1:5). And even here Josephus tells us (Antiquities 18:1:1) that the census by
Quirinius was for the province of Judea only and was purely for evaluating the
possession of the residents there for taxation purposes. As Joseph was a resident of
Nazareth in Galilee, there would have been no need for him to be involved in this
census under Quirinius. [We will review this third discrepancy in more detail later in
this chapter.] 42
42

Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: p549

Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p44
78

In short, Lukes whole scenario is unconvincing and, especially his description

of the method of the Roman census, without any historical support.
Assuming, of course, that Luke does not have the audacity to invent his whole
account of the Nativity, it is probable that both Matthew and Luke received different
and, perhaps still amorphous, traditions regarding the birth of Jesus. For instance, it is
possible that the tradition stated only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem not how his
parents got there. Both Matthew and Luke then simply added details to the story as
they see fit. Could this tradition of the birth in Bethlehem be based on historical fact?
It is certainly possible, of course, that the tradition could have been grounded on
historical fact; possible but highly unlikely. For one thing it obviously reached both
evangelists in different or indefinite forms, had it been historical one would expect
more meat in the story. Secondly the birth in Bethlehem supposedly fulfilled an
Old Testament passage. This is explicitly stated in Matthew:
Matthew 2:4-5
Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he [King Herod]
asked them where the Christ would be born. They said to him, In Bethlehem of
Judea, for thus it is written through the prophet, You Bethlehem, land of Judah
for out of you shall come forth a governor, who shall shepherd my people, Israel.

Matthew was quoting from Micah 5:2.

Micah 5:2
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathahout of you one will come forth to me that is to be
ruler in Israel

It was highly probable that the early Christians searched, or rather ransacked,
the Old Testament to look for references to Jesus. Then having found the verse in
Micah, concluded that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem. Indeed John 7:41-43
showed that for some believers theological reasoning alone is sufficient to conclude
that the messiah must be born in Bethlehem:
John 7:41-43
Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, What, does the Christ come out
of Galilee? Hasnt the Scripture said that the Christ comes of the seed of David,
and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?

The theological reasoning is straightforward: the messiah must be a descendent of

David (Isaiah 11:1), and David was from Bethlehem (I Samuel 16:8) and the new
King will come from this town (Micah 5:2).
Thus the very fact that the birth in Bethlehem fulfils an Old Testament prophecy
makes the whole tradition of doubtful historicity. This caveat is an accepted principle
of historical criticism, as the theologians Don Cuppitt and Peter Armstrong stated in
their book, Who Was Jesus?:
Crossan, Who is Jesus?: p23
Freed, The Stories of Jesus Birth: p119
Guignebert, Jesus: p30-32
Miller, Born Divine: p180-181
79

So our first principle of historical criticism must be: be wary of any details in the
gospels which have close parallels in the Old Testament 43

Our suspicion as to the basic non-historicity of the account of the birth in Bethlehem
is further aroused by the fact that apart from the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke,
there is no evidence elsewhere in the New Testament to support the assertion that
Jesus was born in Bethlehem. We find in Mark, the oldest of all the gospels, passages
that seem to imply the birthplace of Jesus as Nazareth in Galilee:
Mark 6:1
He [Jesus] went out from there. He came into his own country...

The Greek work translated above as own country is patris which means ones
native place or home town, city or country. The whole section covered in the early
chapters of Mark show Jesus preaching in the towns and villages of Galilee, so his
native place must be a town in Galilee. In the first verse referring to Jesus in Mark,
this is how he was introduced:
Mark 1:9
It happened in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was
baptized by John in the Jordan.

Anyone reading these passages in Mark, without any references to Matthew or Luke
will doubtless conclude that Jesus was born in Nazareth in Galilee. Furthermore we
find that in all the three synoptics, Jesus was henceforth referred to as the Galilean
or the Nazarene with no further reference being made to his birth in Bethlehem.
And in the passage we have just seen above - John 7:41-43 - a scene is narrated
where people doubted Jesus messianic status because they believed that the messiah
had to come from Bethlehem. Surely John would have shown that the Jews doubts
were based on their own ignorance about Jesus ancestry and place of birth had he
believed that Jesus was of the house of David and born in Bethlehem. The passage
strongly suggests that John was relying on a tradition about Jesus that included neither
the descent from David nor the birth in Bethlehem. That John believed that Jesus
came from Nazareth can be surmised from this passage below:
John 1:45-46
Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in
the law, and the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Nathanael
said to him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?

As Robert Miller in his book Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God
(2003) pointed out, John is normally of the habit of interjecting his narrative to
explain things he thought his readers may not understand. 44 This would be a perfect
occasion for him to inject and explain that Jesus did not come from Nazareth and
43
44

Cuppitt & Armstrong, Who Was Jesus?: p45

See for examples John 2:21 when he explains that Jesus was talking about his body
and not the temple; John 8:27 when he injected that the Pharisees did not understand that
Jesus was speaking about his father in heaven.
80

therefore Nathanaels question was moot. That he did not is strong evidence that he
believed Jesus was from that Galilean town.
There are thus strong reasons to believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Mark
and John clearly believed Jesus was from there. Both Matthew and Luke came up
with contradictory ways to get Jesus to Nazareth after their respective nativities.
Furthermore, the fact that his alleged birth in Bethlehem could be deduced entirely
from Old Testament messianic prophecies is strong evidence against the historicity of
such a story. In conclusion, the tradition of Jesus birth in Bethlehem is not
historical.45
It is also important to note, despite Matthews determination to show that Jesus
nativity fulfils the scriptures, he is not beyond twisting Old Testament passages when
they do not suit his paradigm. Let us look at the passage and its supposed fulfillment
again:
Matthew 2:5-6
They said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written through the prophet,
You Bethlehem, land of Judah, are in no way least among the princes of Judah: for
out of you shall come forth a governor, who shall shepherd my people, Israel.

Matthew was quoting from Micah. But note that the original passage was slightly
different:
Micah 5:2
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you
one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from
of old, from everlasting.

Note how the evangelist had tried to elevate the status of Bethlehem by changing
Micahs being small... to are in no way least. Matthew has changed the text of the
Old Testament to say the exact opposite of what it means! This provides an important
insight into how the early Christians treated the Old Testament prophecies. They
were willing to correct prophetic writings in order to conform to their view of the
world. In this case it is obvious that they wanted to increase the prestige of
Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus.46

45

46

Guignebert, Jesus: p90

Miller, Born Divine: p181-183
Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls: p150-151
Freed, The Stories of Jesus Birth: p76-77
Miller, Born Divine: p112-113

81

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS

According to Matthews gospel, once Herod realized that he had been tricked by the
wise men, he ordered the slaughter of all male babies less than two years of age living
in or around Bethlehem:
Matthew 2:16-18
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was exceedingly
angry, and sent out, and killed all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in
all the surrounding countryside, from two years old and under, according to the
exact time which he had learned from the wise men. Then that which was spoken
by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, A voice was heard in Ramah,
lamentation, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; she
wouldnt be comforted, because they are no more.

Historically, Herod, to put it mildly, did not have a peaceful reign. His many sons and
wives were involved in bitter rivalry for his throne. Herod was not a man to hold
family relations sacred. He had three of his sons executed for conspiracy. He
executed his brother-in-law, Joseph. At the urging of Josephs widow, Salome, he
murdered his own wife, Mariamme. If he treated his own family badly, his opponents
and enemies were given even more ferocious handling. He murdered the Jewish High
Priest, Aristobolus III and 45 members of the Sanhedrin47 for their support of the
Hasmoneans. These are just samplings of Herods atrocities. There was a wellknown Greek pun, attributed to Caesar Augustus, which goes something like It is
better to be Herods pig [Greek = hus] than his son [huios]. After all in order to
present himself as a Jew he kept his meals kosher pork-free thus no slaughtering
of pigs but he had three of his own sons killed. He was therefore a kind of man that
could have committed the crime Matthew attributed to him.
The atrocities listed above are taken from Josephus Antiquities of the Jews.
From Josephus own writings, we can tell that he hated Herod, for he obviously took
pleasure in noting down every crime and atrocity that was attributed to the Idumean
king. Many of the crimes described by Josephus were far less wicked than the
slaughter of the innocents described by Matthew. Now Josephus list was very
detailed. Had the slaughter actually occurred it would have been an event well known
enough for the Jewish historian to have heard of it. Yet the silence of Josephus and
the absence of any reference to it in any contemporary secular writings (Jewish,
Greek or Roman) cannot be explained if the event was historical. The conclusion
forces itself on us, it never happened.
Note also that Matthew 2:16-18 claimed that this fulfilled an Old Testament
prophecy of Jeremiah (31:15). We noted earlier how the early Christians used the
Hebrew scriptures as a happy hunting ground for allusions to their savior, sometimes,
as in the earlier case of Isaiah 7:14, lifting verses out of context in order to do so. This
is another example. The passage in the Old Testament is not a prophecy about the
future but a story about the Israelites being deported into exile. Ramah was the
stopover town for the deportees before they are shipped out into exile. Let us look at
the passage in full:
47

The Sanhedrin is the supreme religious council of ancient Israel.

82

Jeremiah 31:15-17
Thus says Yahweh: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children,
because they are no more. Thus says Yahweh: Refrain your voice from weeping,
and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded, says Yahweh; and they
shall come again from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your latter end, says
Yahweh; and your children shall come again to their own border.

The italicized portion was the one lifted out by Matthew but note the last line in
boldface. According to the passage Yahweh promised that her children will return
again to their own country! There is no prophecy here, merely the metaphorical
weeping of an important figure in Judaism (Rachel was dead long before the exile) for
a national calamity. Let us repeat the difference again. Rachel was not weeping about
babies but about the Israelites as her (metaphorical) children and she was not
weeping about their deaths but about their deportation. It was a story about the exile
and has nothing to do with a prophecy of a future massacre of babies.48
Furthermore, the story in Matthew is very similar to the Old Testament story of
the baby Moses escape from the pharaoh slaughter of the Israelite children:
Exodus 1:15-16
The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one
was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah, and he said, When you perform the
duty of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stool; if it is a
son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.

Just like the escape of Moses from the clutches of the pharaohs slaughter, so was
Jesus to escape from the grip of Herods massacre. The parallel in these two stories is
strongly suggestive of Matthews dependence on the Exodus episode for this portion
of his nativity.49
As an aside, it is interesting to consider this pericopae from the framework of the
problem of evil. Note that in this story, God intervened by revealing to the wise men
in a dream not to go back to Jerusalem so that Herod would not know where exactly
the baby Jesus was. It was because of not knowing this exact location that Herod had
all the male babies below two years of age in Bethlehem slaughtered. And also it was
revealed to Joseph in a dream to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt to avoid this
massacre. As the 19th century critical historical scholar David Strauss (1808-1874)
pointed out, God, if he wanted to avoid the massacre of the innocents, could easily
have intervened supernaturally at the beginning by making the wise men avoid
Jerusalem altogether and head on to Bethlehem directly. That way Herod would never
have heard of the birth of the messiah!50
48
49

50

Miller, Born Divine: p114-115

Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p795-796
Cuppitt & Armstrong, Who Was Jesus?: p46
Freed, The Stories of Jesus Birth: p102
Miller, Born Divine: p184
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence, p48
Ldemann, The Virgin Birth?: p81-84
83

Let us pause to consider the facts: the massacre of the male babies by Herod as
described in Matthew is an event without any historical corroboration; it fulfils an Old
Testament prophecy (which in itself makes the whole episode suspect); and it closely
parallels the story of Moses escape from the clutches of the pharaoh. To all these
facts there is only one answer: the episode is a work of theological fiction, based on
the story of Moses in Exodus, composed either by Matthew himself or the early
Christian tradition to fulfill what was thought to be an Old Testament prophecy about
the messiah.

THE RETURN TO NAZARETH

Another problem conveniently overlooked by believers is the basic incompatibility in
the narratives of Matthew and Luke regarding the return 51 of Joseph and his family
to Nazareth.
According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary went there direct from Egypt, as they
dared not return to Judea because of Archelaus.
Matthew 2:19-23
But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to
Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go
into the land of Israel, for those who sought the young childs life are dead. He
arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But
when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father,
Herod, he was afraid to go there. Being warned in a dream, he withdrew into the
region of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.

According to Luke, Joseph went to Jerusalem from Bethlehem for Marys purification
ceremony and from there went back to Nazareth:
Luke 2:22,39
When the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled,
they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord When they had
accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned
into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth

Nowhere in earlier passages had Luke even implied that Mary and Joseph went
back to Nazareth first after the birth of Jesus. Thus according to Luke, Joseph, Mary
and Jesus went to Jerusalem from Bethlehem and then back to Nazareth. The itinerary
based on Matthew was Bethlehem-Egypt-Nazareth, while that of Luke was NazarethBethlehem-Jerusalem-Nazareth. The two itineraries are therefore incompatible.
Some theologians had, as usual, tried to twist the story in Matthew to such an
extent where they claimed that Joseph went to Jerusalem from Egypt and then went
on to Nazareth after the Temple offering. So the unified itinerary becomes:
Nazareth-Bethlehem-Egypt-Jerusalem-Nazareth. Apart from the fact that Matthew
51

I have put the word return in inverted commas because only in Luke was it made
explicit that Joseph and Mary were originally from Nazareth. No such allusion is
discernable in Matthew (as was discussed earlier).
84

had explicitly stated that Joseph did not return to Judea from Egypt (Matthew 2:22) a
problem of timing arises.
Luke says that Joseph and his family went back to Nazareth after the purification
ceremony. Jewish Law requires that the purification of the mother is to be done forty
days after the birth of the baby:
Leviticus 12:1-6
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, If a
woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as
in the days of her monthly period she shall be unclean. In the eighth day the flesh
of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall continue in the blood of purification
thirty-three days. She shall not touch any holy thing, nor come into the sanctuary,
until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then
she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her period; and she shall continue in the
blood of purification sixty-six days. When the days of her purification are
completed, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of
the Tent of Meeting, a year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a
turtledove, for a sin offering.

So to reconcile the two nativities (and ignoring the basic incompatibility we have
noted above) every event must be fitted into these forty days. Now Luke says that
Jesus was circumcised and given his name on the eighth day (Luke 2:21) and
Matthew narrated about the story of the visit of the wise men only after Jesus was
named. So, in effect the visit of the wise men, the slaughter of the innocents, the
flight into and the return from Egypt all took place within a period of only 32 days! 52
This is clearly impossible, for the journey to and from Egypt itself would have taken
at least that long. Perhaps God had his remote controller on fast forward?
This event of leaving Egypt for Nazareth was, according to Matthew, in
fulfillment of two prophecies. One, as we have seen above, was that Jesus was to be
called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23), the other was noted a little earlier in the gospel:
Matthew 2:14-15
He [Joseph] arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed
into Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod; that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt I called my
son. [Hosea 11:1]

Like the earlier prophecy fulfillments referred to by Matthew these two are
problematic. The first prophecy noted by Matthew [in 2:23 - He shall be called a
Nazarene] cannot be found anywhere the Old Testament! 53 There is nothing in any
of the books of the Old Testament which says that the messiah will be called a
Nazarene. The second prophecy is supposedly lifted from Hosea 11:1. But a quick
look at the passage will show that it has nothing to do with a future event:
Hosea 11:1-2

52
53

Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p60

Miller, Born Divine: p115
85

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I
called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and
burning incense to idols.

This is certainly straining the idea of prophecy to the extreme. Firstly the passage
refers to Israel as Gods son. Indeed the whole passage (Hosea 11:1-7) refers to an
event in the past, the Exodus from Egypt, and to Gods intention to punish Israel for
their lack of faith! Matthew has thus lifted his prophecy out of context from a
passage that has nothing to do with a prophecy.54
To summarize matters, Matthews tale about the sojourn in Egypt cannot be
historical because of three reasons: firstly it fulfils prophecy, secondly he had an
agenda to use Jesus life to symbolize what happen to Israel in the past 55 and thirdly
this trip is not alluded to anywhere else in the New Testament. 56

ON HEROD AND QUIRINIUS

It is easy to add an aura of authenticity to ones story by adding, as a kind of
backdrop, historical persons and events. This is what writers of historical fiction do
to create verisimilitude. Done properly it adds to our enjoyment and also to our
understanding of the actual historical period. However sometimes we come across
bungling writers who get their history and dates mixed up; irritating the informed
reader and misleading the uninformed one. Luke most definitely belonged to the
class of bungling authors of historical fiction. This is especially clear in his attempts
to connect Jesus birth to worldwide events of that time.
According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the
Great (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5ff). 57 Now we know from secular sources that Herod
was definitely an historical figure. We also know, with some accuracy, the actual date
of Herods death: towards the end of March in the year 4 BCE. This is because
Josephus recorded the execution of 42 people who had staged an unsuccessful revolt
against the Idumean. There was an eclipse of the moon that occurred during the night
of this execution (Antiquities of the Jews 17:6:4). This allows for precise
astronomical calculations which set the date of execution as March 13, 4 BCE. Now
54

55

56

57

Bradlaugh, Humanitys Gain From Unbelief: p137

Miller, Born Divine: p113-115
The slaughter of the innocent mirrors the nativity story in Moses and the travel in and
out of Egypt recalls the Exodus.
Miller, Born Divine: p167
Matthew states this unambiguously:
Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod
Matthew even attributed the trip to Egypt as an escape from Herods massacre (Matthew
2:13-16). Although we cannot find a singular statement in Luke as we find in Matthew
2:1, his position is also that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. We are first
told about the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist was made to his father
Zecharias during the reign of King Herod the Great (Luke 1:5-25). We are told that when
Zecharias wife, Elizabeth, was six month pregnant, the annunciation to Mary took place
(Luke 1:26-38).That Mary was pregnant before John was born can be deducted from
Luke 1:42 where Elizabeth is quoted as blessing the fruit of Marys womb.
86

we are told that Herod died a few days after this execution, which makes his death
around the second half of March 4 BCE. 58 Thus, based on the gospel narratives, Jesus
must have been born before or around 4 BCE.
However Lukes excuse for bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the
Roman census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1). While we have problems with Lukes
description of the method of the census (as was discussed earlier), the census itself
was undoubtedly an historical event for Josephus described a Jewish revolt that
resulted from this census. The date of the census, like the death of Herod, can also be
dated with some precision. Josephus clearly states that the census took place 37 years
after Caesar defeated Antony at Actium, which was fought on September 2, 31 BCE
(another precise dating based on astronomy) based on our present system of
reckoning. This means that census under Quirinius took place in the year 6 CE. We
also know, from Roman sources, that Quirinius was legate (or governor) of Syria
between Volusius Saturninus and Caecilius Creticus Silonus, which makes his tenure
last for six years, from 6 CE to 12 CE. These dates are therefore consistent with
Josephus reckoning.59
Now Luke said that it was this census that forced the pregnant Mary to leave
Nazareth to travel to Bethlehem with Joseph. We have seen earlier that both gospels
state that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (i.e. 4 BCE). However,
Herod had been dead for ten years when the census took place in 6 CE. This
fundamental inconsistency shows that Luke had resorted to fiction to tie in the nativity
with historical events.
The dates for the death of Herod (4 BCE) and the census under Quirinius (6 CE)
are historically unassailable. So how do the fundamentalist/evangelical apologists try
to wriggle their way out of this? The normal explanation was that the census
referred to by Luke was an earlier census than the one mentioned by Josephus. And
to maintain their beloved dogma of biblical inerrancy, they had also suggested that
Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, once in 6 CE to 12 CE and once earlier, during
the reign of Herod.60
However this apologetic attempt fails. Let us list out the historical facts against
such an explanation.
Firstly, there is no historical documentation of a census under Roman auspices
earlier than 6 CE in Judea. As mentioned above, the Roman census is taken primarily
for taxation purposes. It only became necessary in Judea in 6 CE after Archelaus was
deposed and the province of Judea came under direct Roman rule. Before this Judea
was a client kingdom, i.e. under Roman domination but not under direct Roman
rule. No Roman census in a client kingdom had ever been recorded. At any rate
Herod the Great was a very obedient subject of Rome who paid his dues properly.
There was no need for Rome to intervene directly with any kind of census in Judea.61
An earlier census is also impossible for a few other reasons. As Josephus
mentioned, in 6 CE the census provoked a revolt among the Jewish people who had
58
59
60
61

Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p61-63

Guignebert, Jesus: p97, 100
McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: p71
Guignebert, Jesus: p100
Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p50
Miller, Born Divine: p180-181
87

never taken kindly to foreign domination and to censuses. Even when the census was
done by King David himself it was not viewed in a favorable light. Thus we have the
book of Chronicles attributing Davids desire for census to the influence of the devil:
I Chronicle 21:1
Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

A people who had historically been hostile to even their own King taking a census
would not submissively allow some foreign power do the same and, according to
Josephus, they didnt. If an earlier census had occurred it would have provoked a
similar reaction from the Jews that would have been impossible for historians to have
missed. Some have suggested that the earlier census was carried out by Herod in
accordance with Jewish customs and this would have prevented any riots from the
inhabitants of Palestine. This explanation is equally unacceptable. Herod, being an
Idumean, was considered by the Jews to be as foreign as the Romans! It simply
stretches credulity to assert that there was an earlier census conducted in Judea that
went unnoticed by historians.62
In desperation, some apologists have pointed to the wording in the gospel of
Luke about the census:
Luke 2:2
This was the first enrollment [i.e. census] made when Quirinius was governor of
Syria.

They argue that the use of the word first implies that there was a second census
under Quirinius and that this latter census was the one Josephus mentioned in 6 CE.
Thus the first census must have been earlier than this. So despite the lack of
historical evidence and the reasons given above, they insist on an earlier census based
on this one verse.
Although in general the use of the word first does imply second, in this
specific case it does not. There are two reasons why this is so. Firstly it is quite clear
that Luke is aware of only one census as attested by this passage in Acts:
Acts 5:37
After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the enrollment, and drew
away some people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him,
were scattered abroad.

The use of the definite article the (Greek = tes) for the census clearly shows that
Luke knew only one census in Judea. Secondly the context of this passage clearly
does not imply a second. Its meaning in such contexts is that this is something
unique that has not been done before. The use of the word first (Greek = protos) in
Luke 2:2 means that it was the first census conducted by the Romans in Judea. Its use
in this sense does not necessarily imply that there was a second census. We can see
such a similar use in Josephus Antiquities.
62

Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p925-926

88

Antiquities of the Jews 7:3:2

It was David, therefore, who first cast the Jebusites out of Jerusalem
[or - David was the first to drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem]

Since the Jebusites were never driven out of Jerusalem a second time, the use of the
term first means that Davids feat was, until that time, unique. It does not imply that
the Jebusites were driven out a second time from Jerusalem after David. This is
exactly the same way the word is used in Luke 2:2.63
The second point of the conservative apologists is that Quirinius was governor
of Syria twice, once in 6 CE and once earlier, during the reign of Herod the Great.
This suggestion (apart from the obvious need to save the faith of the apologists) was
based on a fragmentary inscription found in Antioch that supposedly referred to
Quirinius as the governor of Syria at an earlier date than 6 CE. 64
However this explanation is, as usual, flawed. 65 The suggestion that the
inscription could be understood to refer to Quirinius a governor was first made by the
apologist Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939). The inscription simply mentioned that
Quirinius was honored for his role in achieving a military victory. It was Ramsey who
guessed that Quirinius reward for his role was an earlier appointment, prior to 6 CE,
as governor of Syria. Nothing in the inscription even suggests this. It is not surprising
that most historians are of the opinion that the inscription does not provide any
evidence to support the assertion that Quirinius was governor of Syria earlier than 6
CE.66
Furthermore from Josephus we know most of the Roman governors of Syria
during that time. Table 11.3 below shows the governors of Syria from 23 BCE to 7
CE. Two Roman governors of Syria during the last years of Herods reign were C.
Sentius Saturninus, who held the post from 9 to 6 BCE, and P. Quintilius Varus was
his successor from 6 to 4 BCE. And it was Quintillus Varus who, as governor,
suppressed the uprising that occurred after the death of Herod.
Years of Governorship
23-13 BCE
13-11 BCE
c. 10 BCE
9-6 BCE
6-4 BCE [after the death of Herod]

63
64

65

66

Name of Governor
M.Agrippa
?
M. Titius
C. Sentius Saturninus
P. Quintilius Varus

Brown, Birth of the Messiah: p668

McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: p71
Note that to prove the narrative in Luke correct the apologists have to show two
things to be historically true: first that there was an earlier Roman census in Judea and
second that Quirinius was also governor of Syria during that census. We have seen that
the idea of an earlier census is totally without historical support and goes against all that
we know of the Roman Empire. Thus even if the apologists succeeded in proving that
Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, the first problem still remains.
Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: p550-551
Cary & Scullard, A History of Rome: p630
Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: p61
89

c. 3-2 BCE
1 BCE to c. 4 CE
4-5 CE
6 CE after 7 CE

?
Gauis Caesar
L. Volusius Saturninus
P. Sulpicius Quirinius

Table 11.3 The Governors of Syria Between 23 BCE to 7 CE67

There are only two blanks in the list of governors between 23 BCE to 7 CE; once
between 13-11 BCE and another time between 3-2 BCE. The latter gap is of no
consequence since by then Herod was already dead.68
Quirinius career is relatively well documented in our primary sources. Tacitus
Annals of Imperial Rome (3:22-23, 3:48), Suetonius Tiberius (49), Strabo Geography
(12:6:5) and Josephus Antiquities of the Jews (17:13:5, 18:1:1) all mentioned some
aspects of his career. From these we know that he was born sometime before 50 BCE
and that he died in 22 CE. We know that he was already consul of Rome by 12 BCE.
He was in Asia Minor between 12 6 BCE where he fought the war against the
Homonadenses. He was the governor of Pamphylia-Galatia between 6 to 1 BCE. He
was serving as the adviser for Gauis Caesar for several years before 4 CE. Josephus
mentioned Quirinius several times when he became governor of Syria in 6 CE
(Antiquities 17:13:5, 18:1:1). So we read of Quirinius career spanning 20 years from
12 BCE to 6 CE, yet not once was he mentioned as taking over the governorship of
Syria at an earlier date.69
These details tell us that Quirinius could not have been governor during the
years we have gaps in the list of the Roman governors of Syria; in 13-11 BCE he
was consul of Rome, while the years 3-2 BCE were spent as governor of PamphyliaGalatia.
To summarize, no historical record supports a Roman census in Judea earlier
than 6 CE. And there is absolutely no possibility of Quirinius being the governor of
Syria during the reign of Herod the Great. Luke has presented two events (Herod and
the census) as though they were historically simultaneous when they were not.
Lukes attempt at creating verisimilitude for his fictional account fails.

67
68

69

Adapted from Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: p550

Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: p550
Caird, Saint Luke: p28
Guignebert, Jesus: p100-101
Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: p550
White, From Jesus to Christianity: p33-34
90

THE DATE OF JESUS BIRTH

The discussions above should show why the date of Jesus birth cannot be establish
with any certainty. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great then it must
have been before or around 4 BCE. If he was born during the Roman census then it
must have been in 6 CE. These two dates are not the only discrepancies in
determining the birth date of Jesus. Luke states that Jesus was about 30 years old
when he began to preach (Luke 3:23) and that was during the fifteenth year of the
reign of Tiberias Caesar (Luke 3:1). Now we know that Augustus Caesar died in 14
CE and that Tiberias was his successor. Thus the 15th year of his reign would be
around 29 or 30 CE. This sets his birth date around 1 BCE or 1 CE. In John we have
a passage that implies that Jesus was close to 50 years old during the time of his
ministry:
John 8:57
The Jews therefore said to him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen
Abraham?

There is nothing symbolic about the number (or age) 50. Thus it is likely that John
meant the passage to show that Jesus was in his (probably late) forties. This will
bring the birth date of Jesus to slightly after 20 BCE. In the references above we have
five different birth dates of Jesus: c20 BCE (John), c4 BCE (Matthew and Luke), c 1
BCE or c1 CE (Luke), 6 CE (Luke). This date gives a discrepancy of more than a
quarter of a century! So much for biblical inerrancy.
Our present system of counting years BC (or BCE) and AD (or CE) was first
established by a Scythian monk named Dionysius The Less (Dionysius Exiguus) who
lived in Rome during the 6th century CE. The Romans had counted the years from
the foundation of the city Rome [a.u.c. = ab urbe condita]. Around the year 534 CE,
Dionysius, aptly titled The Less, based his calculations entirely on Luke 3:1 and
Luke 3:23. He allowed for one year to pass between the commencements of John the
Baptists and Jesus respective ministries. This makes Jesus preaching start around
the 16th year of Tiberius Caesars reign, which he set at 30 CE with Jesus being 30
years old (Dionysius ignored Lukes about) then. This was the year 754 a.u.c. which
he equated with 1 AD (anno domini the year of our lord) or 1 CE. So 1 CE became
the year of Jesus birth. The monk did not have any external means of fixing the date
of Herods death (which was four years earlier at 750 a.u.c) and the Judean census.
Of course, he wouldnt have thought he needed to, as the gospels cannot, in his belief,
contain any error. So thanks to a bungling Christian monk we now figure our dates by
BCE and CE with the year 1 CE actually based on an event of uncertain date!70

70

Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p937

Asimov, Book of Facts: p372-373
Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: p166-167
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p44
Freed, The Stories of Jesus Birth: p118
Guignebert, Jesus: p103
Miller, Born Divine: p179
91

The next piece of fact should probably no longer come as a surprise to the
reader: Jesus was not born on December 25th. Neither Luke nor Matthew gave any
indication of Jesus actual birthday. Like many things Christian, the origin of this date
comes from the celebration of the pagan religions that nascent Christianity had to
compete against. Here too, we see Christianity assimilating portions of paganisms
into its structure.
December 25th was the date of the winter solstice. 71 After this, the winter,
having reached its peak, slowly gives way to spring. The winter solstice therefore,
had been traditionally in Roman times, a period of unrestrained celebration. The
celebration was called the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti or the birthday of the
unconquered sun. In the pagan religion of Mithraism, which was a form of sun
worship, the winter solstice was naturally an occasion of great celebration. The
worship of Sol Invictus, the Sun God, became so popular that by 274, the Roman
Emperor Aurelian (c212-275) gave official sanction to December 25th as the birthday
of that God. Christianity in it battle with the pagan religions for converts slowly
assimilated their celebrations and beliefs. Christmas day became one of the
assimilated celebrations. By the year 354 we already have documents referring to
December 25th as the birthday of Jesus. By 440 Christians were celebrating the
winter solstice as the birthday of Jesus. By the 6th century, during the reign of
Emperor Justinian (527-565), it had become recognized as an official Christian
holiday.72
Thus one of the most important dates in the Christian calendar, like so many
portions of the nativity, is an assimilated pagan celebration.

MATTHEWS PROPHECY FULFILMENT

Anyone who has read Matthews nativity will note how often he tried to tie the events
in Jesus life to Old Testaments prophesies. As we have seen in various sections in
this chapter, Matthew referred to an Old Testament prophecy five times in his nativity
of Jesus:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The virgin birth: Matthew 1:22-23 / Isaiah 7:14

The birthplace of Jesus as Bethlehem: Matthew 2:4-5 / Micah 5:2
The slaughter of the innocents: Matthew 2:18 / Jeremiah 31:15
The return from Egypt: Matthew 2:14-15 / Hosea 11:1-2
Jesus origin from Nazareth: Matthew 2:23 / ??

Let us first review how Matthew used the Old Testament prophecies. The prophecy
of the virgin birth is mistranslation of the Hebrew Bible, the term virgin is not
71
72

By the old Roman calendar, in our new slightly modified calendar, the winter solstice
falls on December 21.
Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p931-932
Asimov, Book of Facts: p370
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p47
Keller, The Bible As History: p338
92

found in there but in the Greek Septuagint. He had no qualms about lifting passages
completely out of their contexts and treats them as prophecies. Thus the Isaiah
prophecy was meant for Ahaz and had nothing to do with events centuries in the
future. The cry of Rachel in Jeremiah was meant for the Israelites going into exile, not
for the deaths of babies in Bethlehem. The passage about the calling of Gods son in
Hosea refers to the Israelites returning from Egypt during the Exodus. He changed the
wording in Micah 5:2 because he did not feel it gave enough prestige to Bethlehem.
How many of these prophecies came true? We have seen that the virgin birth is
unhistorical, that Jesus was more likely born in Nazareth not Bethlehem, the massacre
of the babies in Bethlehem did not happen and that the whole trip to Egypt was a
fictitious invention of Matthew. The only one that came true was the fact that Jesus
was called a Nazarene. Unfortunately this is the only one where the Old Testament
passage cannot be found; i.e. Matthew had made up the one prophecy that came
true!73

THE REST OF THE NATIVITY

All our earlier analysis has shown that a major portion of the story of the birth of
Jesus is unhistorical. Now we shall look at the status of the rest of the nativity
episodes in Matthew and Luke.
Matthew 2:1-12 describes the appearance of the wise men from the east who
came looking for Jesus because they saw a star in the east. And when they found
him they offered him presents of gold, incense and myrrh. 74 The problem is, despite
diligent research by scholars nobody really knows the identity and the origins of these
wise men.75 As for the star, many suggestions had been made: a nova, a comet and
even a planetary conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter. None of these were successful:
there was no nova recorded during the period of Jesus birth; Halleys comet
appeared in 12/11 BCE but that was too far back to satisfy most Christian theologians;
and the planetary conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter occurred in 7 BCE but the
distance between the planets, as viewed from the earth, was still far enough apart for
each of the planets to be discernable as separate objects. It was highly unlikely that
they could have been mistaken for a single star.76
It should also be remembered that the occurrence of heavenly phenomena is a
common theme in Greco-Roman legends. For instance a comets appearance in the
sky during the death of Julius Caesar (c110-44BC) was recorded by Suetinus while
the same phenomena that accompanied the birth of Mithridates (c132-63BC), King of
Pontus, was recorded by the historian Justin.77
73

74

75
76

77

Miller, Born Divine: p164-167

The myths that grew on this gospel story were so luxuriant that popular
imagination asserted that there were three kings (not an uncertain number of wise men)
and their names were Melchior, Gasper and Balthazar. These are of course merely more
legendary accretions to an already unhistorical story.
Riedel et.al., The Book of the Bible: p466
Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p791-792
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p58
Miller, Born Divine: p102
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p57-58
93

In view of the lack of historical support for the story of the wise men and the star
of Bethlehem it is very likely that the whole story was composed by Matthew from
Old Testament passages:78
On the star in the east
Numbers 24:17
A star will come out of Jacob. A scepter will rise out of Israel
On the wise men
Isaiah 60:3
Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.
On their presents
Isaiah 60:6
they shall bring gold and frankincense.

As for the significance of myrrh, I quote Marina Warners Alone of All Her Sex:
The myrrh appeared...in the book of Exodus, when the Jews at Moses order mix a
chrism with which they anoint the Ark of the Covenant - an apt symbol that the
child accepts the wise mens myrrh is the anointed one who will inaugurate the new
covenant.79

All the above considerations point to the fact that Matthew concocted the whole
episode of the wise men, the star and the gifts out of Old Testament passages.
Lukes other episodes of the nativity also have very little claims to historicity.
Like Matthew, these episodes can be traced directly to Old Testament passages.
Take, for instance, the annunciation of the birth of Jesus to Mary by the angel
Gabriel. The dialogue between the virgin and the angel seems to be taken wholly
from the Old Testament. The comparison given below shows this clearly: 80

The angel greets Mary the same way he (in Daniel the angels name was also
Gabriel) was said to have greeted Daniel:
Luke 1:28
Rejoice, you highly favored one!
Daniel 9:23
for you are greatly beloved

78
79
80

And Gabriels reassurance to Mary is similar to that he gave Daniel:

Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p84-85

Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: p6
Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: p6
Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: p11
94

Luke 1:30
Dont be afraid, Mary
Daniel 10:12
Dont be afraid, Daniel

In another Old Testament passage, an angel greets Gideon in the same words that
Gabriel used with Mary:
Luke 1:28
The angel said to her, The Lord is with you...
Judges 6:12
And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, The Lord is
with you...

No critical scholar considers the two canticles in Luke, Marys, The Magnificat (Luke
1:46-55) and Zechariahs The Benedictus (Luke 1:67-79) to be actual spontaneous
outburst of poetry of ordinary people. These canticles are mainly based, respectively,
on the Septuagint versions of the Song of Hannah (I Samuel 2:1-10) and on the Book
of Psalms.81
This dependence on the Old Testament for the episodes in the nativity stories is
almost total. In fact, as Don Cuppitt and Peter Armstrong pointed out the main
outline of the nativity stories can be derived purely from Old Testament passages.82
Table 11.4 gives the nativity episodes and the Old Testament passages that were used
as sources by Luke and Matthew.
It is important to think about the implications of this. We know that the early
Christians believed Jesus was the Christ or messiah. That belief came first.
Following that they believe that his coming and the details of his life must have been
foretold in the Old Testament. Thus in cases where they have little or no direct
historical information on his life, it is natural, indeed expected, that they would scour
through the Bible to look for references to Jesus life. If a passage is viewed, however
vaguely, as messianic by these Christians then it follows, in their worldview that it
must have happened that way. That almost every detail of the nativity has parallel in
the Old Testament is very strong evidence that the entire story is unhistorical.

EPISODES IN THE
NATIVITY
81

82

GOSPEL VERSES

Miller, Born Divine: p44-53

Freed, The Stories of Jesus Birth: p155-170
Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: p12-13
Cuppitt & Armstrong, Who Was Jesus: p45
95

OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES

The Annunciation

Luke 1:26-38

The Magnificat

Luke 1:46-56

The Benedictus

Luke 1:67-69
Luke 1:27
Matthew 1:18
Luke 2:4-6
Matthew 2:1

The Virgin Birth

The Birth in Bethlehem
The Wise Men From the
East

Matthew 2:1-12

The Star of Bethlehem

Daniel 9:23, 10:12

Judges 6:12, 13:3-4
I Samuel 1:11, 2:1, 7-8
II Samuel 22:51
Malachi 3:12 etc.
Psalm 41:3, 72:18, 105:8-9,45
106:10, 45, 48, 107:10, 111:4, 132:17,
Isaiah 7:14
Micah 5:2
Isaiah 60:3, Isaiah 60:6
Exodus 30:23, Psalms 72:10

Matthew 2:2, 9-10

Numbers 24:17

The Slaughter of the

Innocents

Matthew 2:16-17

Exodus 1:15-16
Jeremiah 31:5

The Return from Egypt

Matthew 2:13-15

Hosea 11:1

Table 11.5: The Dependence of the Nativity Stories on the Old Testament.

THE CHILDHOOD OF JESUS

Of all the four gospels only Luke contains an account of Jesus childhood. It is an
isolated incident of Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Luke 2:41-52
His parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover. When he was
twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast,
and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed
behind in Jerusalem. Joseph and his mother didnt know it, but supposing him to be
in the company, they went a days journey, and they looked for him among their
relatives and acquaintances. When they didnt find him, they returned to Jerusalem,
looking for him. It happened after three days they found him in the temple, sitting
in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them, and asking them questions. All
who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When they saw
him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, Son, why have you treated
us this way? Behold, your father and I were anxiously looking for you. He said to
them, Why were you looking for me? Didnt you know that I must be in my
Fathers house? They didnt understand the saying which he spoke to them. And
he went down with them, and came to Nazareth. He was subject to them, and his
mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and
stature, and in favor with God and men.

A consideration of the details of this story is sufficient to convince us of the fictitious

nature of this story. How could Joseph and Mary, presumably good parents, not ask
where their son was for a whole day? Who fed and clothed Jesus during those three
days? How could his parents have not understood Jesus reply about being in his
Fathers house when they both know of his miraculous origin? As Robert Miller

96

noted, in Lukes writing neither historical accuracy nor realistic story telling has a
high priority.83
Furthermore as Gerd Ldemann points out, the statement in Luke 2:51, that his
mother kept all these sayings in her heart clearly reveals the authors attempt to
explain why this story appeared so late in the tradition. [One can imagine the
question from some more skeptical hearers of this story How come we have never
heard of this before? being answered with the retort, Well, Mary didnt tell anyone
about this until much later.]84
The numbers used in the telling of the story, 3 (days lost) and 12 (age of Jesus)
reveals the artificial nature of the whole story. Three is the messianic figure and
twelve was the age of Solomon when he became King. Daniel too came into
prominence at twelve years of age. And according to Jewish legend, Moses separated
himself from his family at that age. According to Josephus, Samuel became a prophet
at age twelve (Antiquities 5:10:4).85
Recall from the previous chapter that Luke copied and used some material from
Josephus. Here, again, we find that Luke had probably used the Jewish historian as
his source again. In Josephus autobiography, The Life of Flavius Josephus he
mentioned that he had a precocious childhood and had a wide learning of Jewish
religious matters. This is what Josephus himself said of his childhood:
Life of Flavius Josephus 2
Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended
by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal
men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion
about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

Note the point about the high priests and the principle men of Jerusalem consulting
him due to his accurate understanding of the law and the story in Luke about the
twelve year old Jesus who amazed the teachers of the law with his understanding of
the Law. Furthermore we find that Josephus story about Moses childhood probably
influence Luke as well. In Antiquities 2:9:6, Josephus wrote that Moses
understanding [Greek = synesis] became superior to his age and not in accordance
to his stature [Greek = helikia]. In Luke 2:47 the teachers of the Law were amazed
at his understanding [synesis] and in Luke 2:52 that Jesus increased in stature
[helikia].
We have seen earlier that Luke used the Song of Hannah (I Samuel 2:1-10) as
the basis for Marys Magnificat. Hannah was the mother of the prophet Samuel. Luke
used Samuels childhood as the basis for this childhood incident as well.86
83
84
85

86

Miller, Born Divine: p66

Ldemann, Virgin Birth?: p118-119
Freed, The Stories of Jesus Birth: p148
Guignebert, Jesus: p143
Miller, Born Divine: p69-70
Freed, The Stories of Jesus Birth: p148-149
Graham, The Jesus Hoax: p195
Miller, Born Divine: p65-67
Schonfield, The Passover Plot: p24
97

Luke 2:40
The child was growing, and was becoming
strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom,
and the grace of God was upon him.
Luke 2:52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,
and in favor with God and men.

I Samuel 2:21
The child Samuel grew before Yahweh.

I Samuel 2:26
The child Samuel grew on, and increased in
favor both with Yahweh, and also with men.

Table 11.6: Lukes dependence on Samuel.

We can conclude that this story is fictitious and is something either an invention in
toto by Luke or adapted by him from an unhistorical, and late, tradition.

*****
A final note to add about the nativity is that the oldest extant Christian documents, the
epistles of Paul and the gospel of Mark say nothing about the events surrounding
Jesus birth.87 All this, taken together, provides a very strong indictment against the
historicity of the events depicted in the nativity.
But the gospel of Mark has, perhaps unwittingly, left a testament that clinches
our case. We find in this gospel such behavior from his own family members that we
would not expect had they known about the events of the Nativity and its meaning (as
Joseph and, especially Mary should have). There is an episode related by Mark that
occurred during the beginning of Jesus ministry that shows how his family (including
his mother!) reacted when they heard he had started preaching:
Mark 3:21,31-35 (NIV)88
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said,
He is out of his mind.... Then Jesus mother and brothers arrived. Standing
outside, they sent someone in to call him. crowd was sitting around him, and they
told him, Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you. Who are my
mother and my brothers? he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle
around him and said, Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does Gods
will is my brother and sister and mother.

The gist of the above incident is clear, his family including Mary upon hearing that
Jesus had started preaching thought he had gone mad and went to restrain him. Jesus,
angered or perhaps embarrassed by his familys reaction, publicly denounced them.
This passage is most definitely historical. This passage fulfils the criterion we
introduced in chapter 7 known as the criterion of embarrassment. We find that both
Matthew and Luke, both of whom used Mark extensively, omitted it. A later Christian
scribe, as evidenced by some extant manuscripts, even tried to alter the passage by

87
88

Cuppitt & Armstrong, Who Was Jesus: p45

Many Bible versions tend to obscure the harshness of the original Greek so the fact
that Jesus own family thought he was mad is sometimes obscured by the translation.
Surprisingly (especially in view of our analysis in Excursus B) the version that comes
closest to the original Greek for this passage is the NIV!
98

changing When his family heard about this in Mark 3:21 to When the scholars and
others heard this.89
The question here is obvious: why did Mary try to stop Jesus when he started
preaching? Didnt she consent to an angel to be the virgin mother of the son of the
most high? Wasnt it her who sang the Magnificat and said that all generations will
call me blessed because she will be the mother of Jesus? Only one answer is
possible, the historical Mary, who had at least seven children, knew nothing of the
angels, the virgin birth, her perpetual virginity, the slaughter of the innocents, the visit
of the wise men and the star of Bethlehem because these events never happened!
In short, nothing is known about Jesus before his public ministry at (probably)
around thirty years of age. All references to him prior to this are legends without any
historical foundation.

89

Funk et. al., The Acts of Jesus: p72-73

99