What do you think?
Rate this book
Nativity
In a similar format to the astonishingly successful, The Passion Professor, Geza Vermes now turns his attention to the other key festival in the Christian calendar - Christmas. Vermes articulately and controversially disentangles the Christmas story as we know it, relating it to prophecies in the Old Testament and also to later Christian folklore, putting the nativity into its true historical context. This will be required reading for anyone wanting to know the true story behind the Nativity.
192 pages, Paperback
First published November 2, 2006
19 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
Géza Vermes
85 books54 followersGéza Vermes was a Jewish Hungarian scholar and writer on religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 16, 2023
Scholarship.
I'm seriously thinking about putting all my other books that I want to read in a massive pile somewhere and just reading this author's work one after another until I've completed them all.
Geza Vermes places the story of The Nativity in its historical context and examines the Infancy Gospels to separate tidbits of fact from vast amounts of legendary additions.
Firstly, the nativity of Jesus is only mentioned in Luke and Matthew. Their accounts don't derive from each other. Basic elements of the nativity in these gospels are the same: extraordinary pregnancy, Bethlehem as birthplace, and Nazareth as permanent residence after the nativity.
Other details are different. In Luke, Mary and Joseph had been living in Nazareth prior to the nativity but headed to Bethlehem to comply with Augustus's order of a universal census. In Matthew, the residence prior to the nativity is not stated, though the assumption is it would have been Bethlehem.
In Luke, the newborn Jesus was welcomed in a stable by angels, shepherds, and local people whereas in Matthew he was worshipped in a house by the Magi. The flight to Egypt to avoid Herod's soldiers only occurs in Matthew.
Vermes postulates that the nativity stories are later additions to the main Gospel account, added as a prologue to provide the newborn Jesus with an aura of marvel and enigma that provides a counterpart to the epilogue of the Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus. Vermes's justifications for his ideas are fascinating.
The nativity story is not a natural introductory section to the life of Jesus as there's no continuity between it and the rest of his life as there's a gap of 30 years or so (apart from one incident in Luke when the 12-year-old Jesus is found by his parents in the Temple talking with teachers).
Vermes also writes about when Jesus was actually born and the actual date of The Nativity. He shows what the Infancy Gospels reveal about their prehistory and how valuable they are as historical references and their theological significance.
Recommended.
I'm seriously thinking about putting all my other books that I want to read in a massive pile somewhere and just reading this author's work one after another until I've completed them all.
Geza Vermes places the story of The Nativity in its historical context and examines the Infancy Gospels to separate tidbits of fact from vast amounts of legendary additions.
Firstly, the nativity of Jesus is only mentioned in Luke and Matthew. Their accounts don't derive from each other. Basic elements of the nativity in these gospels are the same: extraordinary pregnancy, Bethlehem as birthplace, and Nazareth as permanent residence after the nativity.
Other details are different. In Luke, Mary and Joseph had been living in Nazareth prior to the nativity but headed to Bethlehem to comply with Augustus's order of a universal census. In Matthew, the residence prior to the nativity is not stated, though the assumption is it would have been Bethlehem.
In Luke, the newborn Jesus was welcomed in a stable by angels, shepherds, and local people whereas in Matthew he was worshipped in a house by the Magi. The flight to Egypt to avoid Herod's soldiers only occurs in Matthew.
Vermes postulates that the nativity stories are later additions to the main Gospel account, added as a prologue to provide the newborn Jesus with an aura of marvel and enigma that provides a counterpart to the epilogue of the Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus. Vermes's justifications for his ideas are fascinating.
The nativity story is not a natural introductory section to the life of Jesus as there's no continuity between it and the rest of his life as there's a gap of 30 years or so (apart from one incident in Luke when the 12-year-old Jesus is found by his parents in the Temple talking with teachers).
Vermes also writes about when Jesus was actually born and the actual date of The Nativity. He shows what the Infancy Gospels reveal about their prehistory and how valuable they are as historical references and their theological significance.
Recommended.
January 1, 2018
An examination of the Nativity from a basis of historical sources and culture of the time. There are two parallel narratives in Matthew and Luke; the other 2 gospels start with the adult Jesus. Some basic elements are in common (extraordinary pregnancy, Bethlehem as birthplace, Nazareth as permanent residence), but there is a larger amount of divergence. Birth is during the reign of Herod, to 4BC. Matthew implies they were living in Bethlehem, but Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth and going to Bethlehem to comply with a universal census. Luke has angels, shepherds, and townspeople, while Matthew is worshiped in a house by the Magi. The 3 Magi is not given, but deduced from the number of gifts. In Matthew, the family goes to Egypt to avoid Herod’s soldiers, and a change of plan to Nazareth to avoid his successor. In Luke, they go back to Nazareth after 40 days spent peacefully in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Both have extensive genealogies, although these differ, with the common feature of showing descent from David (although Matthew starts with Abraham, affirming Jewishness). None of these events is referred back to in later Gospels. The birth of Jesus has parallels with other birth stories, in particular Moses. Both position Jesus as the future savior of Israel. The traditional Christmas story is a combination and selective reading, omitting much of the tension.
December 11, 2021
It's a famous story, you will struggle to escape it at this time of year. This book, or at least its author, was recommended to me by someone who assured me that the author was uniquely able to strip away the facts from the legends surrounding the historical Jesus. I found it very much not to my taste. Its a short book (thank good) and it basically relates all of the key events around the story to the literature that was contemporary to the writers of the two gospels in which tales of Jesus' birth appear, Matthew and Luke. A few broad traits do emerge and might in fact stay with me. Firstly, the story only appears in two out of four gospels. Secondly the story as we know it appears in neither, as popular versions weave together elements from Luke (a journey to Bethlehem, a stable, some shepherds) and from Matthew (wise men and gifts, a massacre of the innocents although frankly that rarely features in primary school versions). Thirdly many elements are woven in to confirm with expectations of what happens when great people are born, or to conform with Biblical prophecies. Finally even things which look like historical facts often probably aren't - for example there is no evidence of Augustus ordering a census.
Reading this you feel the author thinks we might have been better off without the nativity story. Try telling that to thousands of kids joining in nativity plays last week and this.
Reading this you feel the author thinks we might have been better off without the nativity story. Try telling that to thousands of kids joining in nativity plays last week and this.
January 3, 2016
Just in time for Christmas, I finished Geza Vermes’ book “The Nativity: history & legend”. I received the book several years ago from my agnostic mother for Christmas with her well-intended best wishes and knowing my interest in Scripture Biblical studies.
I was very excited to read it and gave it a start during Advent of 2014, but something in its’ approach stopped me short, and being a full-time working mom, exec, and teacher, I put it aside for another time.
I picked it up again this Advent when my son asked if we can read it each evening to prepare for Christmas. It is a beautiful book, with a very festive cover and promise with much of its flap text extolling its virtues and states that it “penetrates the deeper meaning of the New Testament… [with] a new and more powerful understanding of the events celebrated every Christmas season.”
The back of the book jacket contains a review from The Guardian: “Vermes sets about painstaking literary and historical analysis with refreshing humor and enthusiasm…”
The Nativity: History & Legend
After just a few pages in, I decided this was not a bedtime story book to share with my tween-spiritually-focused son. But I was able to recognize quality scholarship, so I placed it next to my own bedside to read and reflect on during Advent.
What a mistake.
Now I do not want to discredit the author’s scholarship and knowledge of historical context. His writing is correct and useful. As one who teaches students about the literature of the Bible, his information is helpful and there are several passages I will indeed share with my students to help them understand the society and time of Jesus (and earlier Jewish history in and around Israel). It is critical to help serious students understand the historical context of the time periods we study including the ‘real’ history, so we can delve deep into the meaning and intentions of the texts. And Vermes delivers that knowledge.
What I do want to do, is draw the attention of future readers to really know what they are picking up to read. Without going deep into the book (for I highlighted and underlined too much), the reader should be aware that what is described as humor and enthusiasm is more often sarcasm and condescending accusations of the evangelists that wrote the Gospels that include Infancy Narratives. (Matthew & Luke). Vermes approach is too historical.
Missing is a real understanding of the how and why the evangelists wrote in the manner they did. They did not write biographies of Jesus, they wrote theological tracts for specific communities in a period two millennia ago that understood prophecy, natural occurrences, history and memory in a very different way than we do today. Analyzing any written work from that time period requires one to utilize the lens of the time, not our post-modern lens. We actually lose perspective, the deeper meanings and understanding by trying to force the writing to meet our contemporary standards and styles.
The writer(s) of the Gospel of Matthew is writing for a predominantly Jewish-Christian community struggling to persevere in a community that has been torn apart by the Roman’s occupation, destruction of the temple, loss of formalized worship, just as the Jews of the Babylonian exile had to rely on their priestly writers to shape and redact the Torah to serve their needs, so did this new generation of theologians writing some 50 years after Jesus’ death based on oral stories passed down from a few different sources. They are facing excommunication from their own synagogues and families and are alone in trying to make sense of the miracles and teaching of Jesus. Being a true Christian has never been easy, try following Jesus’ teaching and you will understand.
Luke’s writer has the same purpose, but from a different perspective; most likely writing for a more Gentile (pagan) audience to understand who Jesus is and what he means to the greater world in offering salvation and a single God. Luke had to reach farther back than Jewish/Israelite history to a more universal ‘father’ in Abraham and Adam.
What I find interesting is that we, today, can read and study philosophy, but not necessarily judge it only with an historical eye, but we look for what it means and how it applies to us today. How did it shape the community it was written in, and in every level of societal development since.
Back to Vermes. His use of exclamation points, derision of esteemed Christian scholars, and criticism of ‘Matthew’s’ use of sources, as if we really knew exactly what ‘Matthew’ had at his disposal at the tie of his writing, bears a certain egotism and irreverence for a powerful work that has shaped history, people and societies for close to 2,000 years (not without its own evils, most assuredly – but I would remind readers to return back to the teachings of Christ and know that it is in man’s weakness that ‘the church’ has abused its opportunities throughout the history of Christianity. Look to most large organizations and not find corruption, I challenge anyone.)
Vermes gives much new historical perceptive (for me and surely other readers) but several of the arguments are ‘old news’ – such as the word for virgin or young maiden in describing Mary and the speculation of the authors trying to manipulate their audience. His reproach of the Gospel writers’ criticizes their handling of ‘biblical evidence’ in a way that borders on the RIDICULOUS, why can the writers of the Old Testament, or Hebrew Testament, also known as the TaNaKh, write of new prophecies or offer new teachings, but the authors of the Gospels, just few hundred years later have to meet a different standard?
In all, I would recommend the book for those seeking serious study, but able to take in Vermes work with the ‘grain of salt’. There is much value in his work, but his approach leaves much to be desired, and in today’s society, with our desperate need for ecumenicalism and religious understanding, I hope he will rethink his writing approach in the future.
(p.s. Goodreads description of the book is much more appropriate.)
I was very excited to read it and gave it a start during Advent of 2014, but something in its’ approach stopped me short, and being a full-time working mom, exec, and teacher, I put it aside for another time.
I picked it up again this Advent when my son asked if we can read it each evening to prepare for Christmas. It is a beautiful book, with a very festive cover and promise with much of its flap text extolling its virtues and states that it “penetrates the deeper meaning of the New Testament… [with] a new and more powerful understanding of the events celebrated every Christmas season.”
The back of the book jacket contains a review from The Guardian: “Vermes sets about painstaking literary and historical analysis with refreshing humor and enthusiasm…”
The Nativity: History & Legend
After just a few pages in, I decided this was not a bedtime story book to share with my tween-spiritually-focused son. But I was able to recognize quality scholarship, so I placed it next to my own bedside to read and reflect on during Advent.
What a mistake.
Now I do not want to discredit the author’s scholarship and knowledge of historical context. His writing is correct and useful. As one who teaches students about the literature of the Bible, his information is helpful and there are several passages I will indeed share with my students to help them understand the society and time of Jesus (and earlier Jewish history in and around Israel). It is critical to help serious students understand the historical context of the time periods we study including the ‘real’ history, so we can delve deep into the meaning and intentions of the texts. And Vermes delivers that knowledge.
What I do want to do, is draw the attention of future readers to really know what they are picking up to read. Without going deep into the book (for I highlighted and underlined too much), the reader should be aware that what is described as humor and enthusiasm is more often sarcasm and condescending accusations of the evangelists that wrote the Gospels that include Infancy Narratives. (Matthew & Luke). Vermes approach is too historical.
Missing is a real understanding of the how and why the evangelists wrote in the manner they did. They did not write biographies of Jesus, they wrote theological tracts for specific communities in a period two millennia ago that understood prophecy, natural occurrences, history and memory in a very different way than we do today. Analyzing any written work from that time period requires one to utilize the lens of the time, not our post-modern lens. We actually lose perspective, the deeper meanings and understanding by trying to force the writing to meet our contemporary standards and styles.
The writer(s) of the Gospel of Matthew is writing for a predominantly Jewish-Christian community struggling to persevere in a community that has been torn apart by the Roman’s occupation, destruction of the temple, loss of formalized worship, just as the Jews of the Babylonian exile had to rely on their priestly writers to shape and redact the Torah to serve their needs, so did this new generation of theologians writing some 50 years after Jesus’ death based on oral stories passed down from a few different sources. They are facing excommunication from their own synagogues and families and are alone in trying to make sense of the miracles and teaching of Jesus. Being a true Christian has never been easy, try following Jesus’ teaching and you will understand.
Luke’s writer has the same purpose, but from a different perspective; most likely writing for a more Gentile (pagan) audience to understand who Jesus is and what he means to the greater world in offering salvation and a single God. Luke had to reach farther back than Jewish/Israelite history to a more universal ‘father’ in Abraham and Adam.
What I find interesting is that we, today, can read and study philosophy, but not necessarily judge it only with an historical eye, but we look for what it means and how it applies to us today. How did it shape the community it was written in, and in every level of societal development since.
Back to Vermes. His use of exclamation points, derision of esteemed Christian scholars, and criticism of ‘Matthew’s’ use of sources, as if we really knew exactly what ‘Matthew’ had at his disposal at the tie of his writing, bears a certain egotism and irreverence for a powerful work that has shaped history, people and societies for close to 2,000 years (not without its own evils, most assuredly – but I would remind readers to return back to the teachings of Christ and know that it is in man’s weakness that ‘the church’ has abused its opportunities throughout the history of Christianity. Look to most large organizations and not find corruption, I challenge anyone.)
Vermes gives much new historical perceptive (for me and surely other readers) but several of the arguments are ‘old news’ – such as the word for virgin or young maiden in describing Mary and the speculation of the authors trying to manipulate their audience. His reproach of the Gospel writers’ criticizes their handling of ‘biblical evidence’ in a way that borders on the RIDICULOUS, why can the writers of the Old Testament, or Hebrew Testament, also known as the TaNaKh, write of new prophecies or offer new teachings, but the authors of the Gospels, just few hundred years later have to meet a different standard?
In all, I would recommend the book for those seeking serious study, but able to take in Vermes work with the ‘grain of salt’. There is much value in his work, but his approach leaves much to be desired, and in today’s society, with our desperate need for ecumenicalism and religious understanding, I hope he will rethink his writing approach in the future.
(p.s. Goodreads description of the book is much more appropriate.)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 23, 2019
Dr. Vermes strips away the dross from the bones which are the Christmas story. The why and how the magic which is the Nativity story are explained. This is done with reverence and scholarship. Knowing the guts of the Infancy Gospels doesn't disparage the extent and meaning of the effect of Jesus.You can have the luster. Knowing why it is there does not mean not appreciating the story.
February 22, 2021
very good
August 22, 2022
Interesting and enlightening
January 30, 2012
Religion is a contentious issue, and an area we are not allowed to question without somebody getting all hot and flustered. However, when it got to Christmas a few weeks ago, I thought I'd read about the facts behind the Nativity to try to figure out what is true and what is not. This book had been recommended to me as an accessible read and I have to say that I quite enjoyed it.
This book investigates the main events surrounding the nativity in an attempt to determine what really happened. Vermes compares Christmas in Christian traditions and imagery with the gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke which are contradictory and confusing in many aspects. The 2 accounts agree on only a few basic points but there are many complications and discrepancies Vermes looks at issues such the conception of Jesus, the virgin birth, the stable story, the wise men and the star.
I found it fascinating and, though some of it was a little lost on me (the lineage to King David was a bit like reading through a huge shopping list of random names) I found it to be a fairly easy read.
It is interesting to note that, unlike Dawkins, Vermes still has faith (Jewish) and therefore is not writing this book in order to ridicule or make one feel like they are believing in something utterly ridiculous. Underneath the obvious impossibilities of the Nativity traditions and the romantic imagery, I feel you could quite happily continue with your faith after reading this book, even if it leads you to question reality (though my faith sadly disappeared somewhat years ago).
We all love Christmas- but what is it that is important to us? Does it matter that there is no mention of a stable, or that Mary's virginity status was most likely a mistranslation? Does it matter if the birth is in Nazareth or Bethlehem or whether indeed it was on the 25th December or sometime in Spring? What is interesting to me is why we need to believe these stories, and where they came from. Vermes compares historical fact and bible stories and tries to understand why there are such discrepancies.
This is definitely a book I'd like to come back to, as I'm sure it gets better with a second or third read.
This book investigates the main events surrounding the nativity in an attempt to determine what really happened. Vermes compares Christmas in Christian traditions and imagery with the gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke which are contradictory and confusing in many aspects. The 2 accounts agree on only a few basic points but there are many complications and discrepancies Vermes looks at issues such the conception of Jesus, the virgin birth, the stable story, the wise men and the star.
I found it fascinating and, though some of it was a little lost on me (the lineage to King David was a bit like reading through a huge shopping list of random names) I found it to be a fairly easy read.
It is interesting to note that, unlike Dawkins, Vermes still has faith (Jewish) and therefore is not writing this book in order to ridicule or make one feel like they are believing in something utterly ridiculous. Underneath the obvious impossibilities of the Nativity traditions and the romantic imagery, I feel you could quite happily continue with your faith after reading this book, even if it leads you to question reality (though my faith sadly disappeared somewhat years ago).
We all love Christmas- but what is it that is important to us? Does it matter that there is no mention of a stable, or that Mary's virginity status was most likely a mistranslation? Does it matter if the birth is in Nazareth or Bethlehem or whether indeed it was on the 25th December or sometime in Spring? What is interesting to me is why we need to believe these stories, and where they came from. Vermes compares historical fact and bible stories and tries to understand why there are such discrepancies.
This is definitely a book I'd like to come back to, as I'm sure it gets better with a second or third read.
November 27, 2016
Vermes refers to his book as thorough (16), one that takes into account "all the relevant information" from a large variety of fields (16-17), and "painstaking" (145). But the book is only 172 pages long, has only two pages of endnotes (159-160), has a two-page bibliography characterized by liberal and moderate sources (161-162), makes many highly dubious assertions without supporting argumentation, makes little effort to interact with conservative scholarship, and doesn't break any significant new ground.
He repeats a lot of bad arguments against the historicity of the infancy narratives, bad arguments that have been refuted for many years. He ignores the best arguments for the Bethlehem birthplace. He tells us that Matthew and Luke "agree only on a few basic points" (10), even though they actually agree on dozens. He doesn't even include their agreement that Mary's pregnancy was premarital, for example, even though such an unusual and scandalous timing for the pregnancy is highly unlikely to have been fabricated. Vermes incorrectly claims that Matthew and Luke contradict each other about whether Jesus was born in a house (11). Supposedly, only Matthew has the family in a house in Bethlehem. Aside from Vermes' error in acting as if Matthew and Luke are addressing the same timeframe (they aren't, as we see in Matthew 2:16), see Stephen Carlson's argument that Luke 2 probably does refer to a house ("The Accommodations Of Joseph And Mary In Bethlehem: Kataluma In Luke 2:7", New Testament Studies 56 [2010], 326-342). He ignores or underestimates a lot of patristic evidence against his conclusions. And so on.
Vermes' book is filled with false claims, bad arguments, and ignoring of good counterarguments. What Vermes' book amounts to is an introductory treatment of the infancy narratives from a liberal perspective, without much supporting argumentation.
He repeats a lot of bad arguments against the historicity of the infancy narratives, bad arguments that have been refuted for many years. He ignores the best arguments for the Bethlehem birthplace. He tells us that Matthew and Luke "agree only on a few basic points" (10), even though they actually agree on dozens. He doesn't even include their agreement that Mary's pregnancy was premarital, for example, even though such an unusual and scandalous timing for the pregnancy is highly unlikely to have been fabricated. Vermes incorrectly claims that Matthew and Luke contradict each other about whether Jesus was born in a house (11). Supposedly, only Matthew has the family in a house in Bethlehem. Aside from Vermes' error in acting as if Matthew and Luke are addressing the same timeframe (they aren't, as we see in Matthew 2:16), see Stephen Carlson's argument that Luke 2 probably does refer to a house ("The Accommodations Of Joseph And Mary In Bethlehem: Kataluma In Luke 2:7", New Testament Studies 56 [2010], 326-342). He ignores or underestimates a lot of patristic evidence against his conclusions. And so on.
Vermes' book is filled with false claims, bad arguments, and ignoring of good counterarguments. What Vermes' book amounts to is an introductory treatment of the infancy narratives from a liberal perspective, without much supporting argumentation.
January 29, 2011
The Nativity is a short and accessible critical exploration of the birth narratives found in Luke and Matthew. Vermes explores the similarities and differences between the two accounts and attempts to tease out the implications of disagreements. Because the birth of Jesus tends to be presented at once it is easy to lose track of the fact that Luke and Matthew have two very different stories and Vermes does a good job untangling the stories and pointing out the insurmountable contradictions and suggesting feasible explanations for them. One example is the fact that the genealogy in Matt and Luke are so different there is no way to harmonize them. He points out that perhaps the two were drawing on two different lists in circulation at the time, perhaps different lists were favored in different communities.
I think he tends to overestimate the significance of certain disagreements however, and goes to somewhat bizarre extremes to interpret certain areas in a 'Jewish" manner. An example would be his introduction of two different notions of virginity garnered from the Talmud to make Matthew's account more mundane whereas the simplest explanation is that both Matthew and Luke report a miraculous birth. Likewise he makes the rather odd assertion that surely the Jews in Palestine used a Hebrew text of the Bible even if the gospel authors obviously drew on the Septuagint (LXX). Why would we think think when Paul, the earliest writer in the NT, drew on the LXX?
I think he tends to overestimate the significance of certain disagreements however, and goes to somewhat bizarre extremes to interpret certain areas in a 'Jewish" manner. An example would be his introduction of two different notions of virginity garnered from the Talmud to make Matthew's account more mundane whereas the simplest explanation is that both Matthew and Luke report a miraculous birth. Likewise he makes the rather odd assertion that surely the Jews in Palestine used a Hebrew text of the Bible even if the gospel authors obviously drew on the Septuagint (LXX). Why would we think think when Paul, the earliest writer in the NT, drew on the LXX?
August 22, 2012
Interesting but a little jumbled, as if the author couldn't decide who his audience actually was. I learned some things about the contemporary culture of the authors of the infancy narratives in the Gospels as well as older sources that influenced the authors. I did not always agree with the authors conclusions from the evidence.
November 7, 2013
Wonderful scholarly work. Hard for me, as someone who has not studied the bible in detail, to make all the references but I really do now understand the Nativity story in context. SO important as we come up to another commercialised festive season.
Read
April 26, 2010Did not care for this book after just starting it so it went right back to the library
August 10, 2013
A fascinating book that explores all aspects of Jesus' nativity. Very well researched.
July 28, 2014
great look at the truths and legends of biblical times. A terrific read for anyone who enjoys history or the nuances of trying to interpret it
January 21, 2016
Lots to enjoy here, but kind of fizzled out.
January 1, 2026
Concise examination of the Infancy Gospels attached to Matthew and Luke from both a narrative and historical context.
September 2, 2008
Having a pure obsession with all things Christianity, this was an awesome read for me.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews