TWO PROMINENT CRITICAL SCHOLARS LOOK AT THE STORIES OF JESUS’ NATIVITY
Authors Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan (who were both closely aligned with the Jesus Seminar) wrote in the Preface to this 2007 book, “This book… treats what may be the best-known stories in the world. The stories of Jesus’s birth are the foundation of the world’s most widely observed holiday… The idea to write this book … flowed out of our previous collaboration, ‘The Last Week.’ There we treated the last week of Jesus’s life… this book is an obvious sequel… A second reason: just as Holy Week is the most sacred time of the Christian year, Christmas is the second most sacred time. Indeed, in contemporary Western culture … the commemoration of Christmas exceeds the commemoration of Easter…how we understand the stories of Jesus’s birth matters… They are often sentimentalized. And, of course, there is emotional power in them… But the stories of Jesus’s birth … are both personal and political. They speak of personal and political transformation… they are comprehensive and passionate visions of another way of seeing life and of living our lives… We are not concerned with the factuality of the birth stories… our concern is neither to defend them nor to trash them as nonfactual. Rather, we focus on their meaning. What DID and DO these stories MEAN? Our task is twofold. The first is historical: to exploit these stories and their meanings in their first-century context. The second is contemporary: to treat their meanings for Christian understanding and commitment today.” (Pg. vii-ix)
In the first chapter, they explain, “As an example of the filter of tradition, who brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to the infant Jesus? Many would answer: three kings from the East, as in the well-known Christmas carol ‘We Three Kings of Orient Are.’ But Matthew’s story does not refer to kings. Instead, Matthew speaks of wise men, ‘magi,’ from the East. And how many wise men were there? Matthew does not tell us how many---only that they brought three gifts. The notion that there were THREE and that they were KINGS is a much later tradition.” (Pg. 23)
They state, “A consensus of mainstream biblical scholarship sees the stories as relatively late in the development of early Christianity. Matthew and Luke were most likely written in the last two decades of the first century, in the 80s or 90s CE. They are not the earliest Christian writings. That honor belongs to the genuine letters of Paul, written in the decade of the 50s, and the gospel of Mark, written around the year 70. In Mark and Paul, there is no mention of an extraordinary birth of Jesus… From this scholarly consensus … flows an obvious inference: stories of Jesus’s birth were not of major importance to earliest Christianity… From this inference flows a second highly probable inference: the reason that references to a special birth do not appear in the earliest Christian writings is either because the stories did not yet exist or because they were still in the process of formation. In either case, these stories are relatively late, not part of the earliest Christian tradition about Jesus.” (Pg. 25-26)
They assert, “That virginal CONCEPTION of Jesus should not be confused with the Roman Catholic doctrine of his virginal BIRTH---with Jesus coming from Mary’s womb like sunlight though the glass of a medieval cathedral window. This is not found in either Christmas story. Neither should it be confused… with the ‘immaculate conception.’ That is another Roman Catholic doctrine meaning that Mary herself was conceived without the stain … of original sin---as was Jesus also. That is also not found in either Christmas story.” (Pg. 111)
They contend, “that reference to Isaiah 7:14 is present in Matthew, but not in Luke and, therefore, NOT in the tradition about Mary’s virginal conception they inherited independently of one another, It is best seen as Matthew’s own creation… necessitated by his need for exactly FIVE prophetic fulfillments (and FIVE angelic dream messages) in Matthew 1-2 as overture to the five great discourses of Jesus in Mathew 3-28.” (Pg. 114)
They ask, “Why… did that earlier tradition behind both those Christmas stories insist not just on a divine conception, but on a VIRGINAL divine conception? Why not follow Jewish tradition of at least sterile if not aged parents? The only reason we can suggest is part of a deliberate exaltation of the New Testament over the Old Testament…” (Pg. 120)
They note, “taken literally, Caesar Augustus never did and never could have ordered a census of the entire Roman Empire, let alone the entire inhabited world, all at one time… in 6 CE… there followed the ‘first registration,’ that is, census for taxation… This was conducted by the Syrian governor … Quirinius… But Luke had already dated the conception of John and Jesus with ‘the days of King Herod of Judea.’ Matthew agreed that it was ‘in the time of King Herod’ that ‘Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.’ [2:1] Indeed, we have to imagine Jesus’s birth in Matthew as much as two years before Herod’s death in March/April of 4 BCE… The birth of Jesus under the rule of Herod the Great … cannot have taken place under the census of Quirinius, which started in 6 CE… The Roman taxation… was done by one’s own household… You were counted where you lived, worked, and paid your taxes. What is described by Luke … would have been… a geographical impossibility, a bureaucratic nightmare, and a fiscal disaster.” (Pg. 147-148)
They observe, “Nobody knows the day, the month, or the season of the year of Jesus’s birth. The date of December 25 was not decided upon until the middle of the 300s. Before then, Christians celebrated his birth at different times---including March, April, May, and November. But around the year 350 Pope Julius in Rome declared December 25 as the date, thereby integrating it with a Roman winter solstice festival … The Roman birthday of the sun became the Christian birthday of the Son.” (Pg. 172)
They argue, “The issue of whether to translate Isaiah 7:14 as referring to a virgin or a young woman has caused controversy among Christians… fifty years ago, the Revised Standard Version … correctly translated the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 as ‘young woman.’ Some Christians reacted strongly… [and] even burned copies of the RSV. The second difference between Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew’s citation of it is that, in Isaiah, the young woman is ALREADY with child, already pregnant… The sign in Isaiah concerns not how the child would be conceived, but the naming of the child. Isaiah 7:14 is not a prediction of a miraculous birth centuries later, not a prediction of Jesus.” (Pg. 205)
Of Matthew 2:23, they comment, “The holy family has not returned to the Jewish homeland from Egypt, but instead of going back to Bethlehem… they move to Nazareth. This, Matthew says, took place ‘so that what has been spoken of through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.”’ This citation can be treated very concisely, for there is no such passage in the Old Testament, though there have been many scholarly speculations about what Matthew may have had in mind.” (Pg. 209)
This book will be of great interest to those (who accept modern critical theories about the Bible) studying Jesus’ birth, etc.