What do you think?
Rate this book
The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library
The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
The truth behind the Gospel accounts of the Nativity, updated to include the latest research--a classic by a renowned scholar, hailed as "masterly" and "definitive" in the original edition.
752 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
27 people are currently reading
566 people want to read
About the author
Raymond E. Brown
138 books100 followersRoman Catholic priest, member of Society of Saint-Sulpice and a prominent biblical scholar, esteemed by not only his colleagues of the same confession. One of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 30, 2012
I read this book at the suggestion of a retired colleague, well, more like insistence, really. "Surely," he wrote me, "you've read the CLASSIC The Birth of the Messiah." I hadn't.
The problem with classics is that by definition they've been around a while. "The Birth of the Messiah" was originally published in 1977, a then-rare bit of critical Biblical scholarship from a Roman Catholic scholar. I've no doubt it was ground-breaking. But by the time I was in seminary in the late 80s, the core arguments of this book had been widly disseminated and built upon. Much further work on the nativity and infancy narratives and their connection with Old Testament texts and Graeco-Roman or Oriental hero legends has continued to be published ever since.
So, with apologies to the estimable Raymond Brown, SS, even this "updated edition" (1993 was a long time ago in publishing time) has little new to offer. I found myself skimming large sections, looking for something new to me. There wasn't much, even for this non-specialist. Also, Brown, like so many Biblical scholars, has written a book FOR Biblical scholars. There are huge amounts of citations and obscure references to wade through, not just in the footnotes but in the main text as well, which have value only if you are intersted in pursuing the more arcane original sources to see if you can trip Brown up on his readings of Hebrew, Greek or Latin source material.
So, I'll keep this "classic" on my shelves and may pull it down come Christmas time and use its index to see if I can glean a nugget for a sermon on the Matthean or Lukan passages. But I could do pretty well without it. Brown's ultimate accomplishment has been to put much of this material so into common understanding that he's rendered his book obsolete.
The problem with classics is that by definition they've been around a while. "The Birth of the Messiah" was originally published in 1977, a then-rare bit of critical Biblical scholarship from a Roman Catholic scholar. I've no doubt it was ground-breaking. But by the time I was in seminary in the late 80s, the core arguments of this book had been widly disseminated and built upon. Much further work on the nativity and infancy narratives and their connection with Old Testament texts and Graeco-Roman or Oriental hero legends has continued to be published ever since.
So, with apologies to the estimable Raymond Brown, SS, even this "updated edition" (1993 was a long time ago in publishing time) has little new to offer. I found myself skimming large sections, looking for something new to me. There wasn't much, even for this non-specialist. Also, Brown, like so many Biblical scholars, has written a book FOR Biblical scholars. There are huge amounts of citations and obscure references to wade through, not just in the footnotes but in the main text as well, which have value only if you are intersted in pursuing the more arcane original sources to see if you can trip Brown up on his readings of Hebrew, Greek or Latin source material.
So, I'll keep this "classic" on my shelves and may pull it down come Christmas time and use its index to see if I can glean a nugget for a sermon on the Matthean or Lukan passages. But I could do pretty well without it. Brown's ultimate accomplishment has been to put much of this material so into common understanding that he's rendered his book obsolete.
January 16, 2022
5⭐️ for much different reasons than my other recent 5 star ratings. But so glad to have read.
January 17, 2022
Summary: An academic commentary on the Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke.
This has been on my shelves a long time, a library copy picked up at a sale many years ago. More recently, it has been joined by Brown’s two volume The Death of the Messiah. I decided for Advent this year, it would be a good time to finally dive into this magisterial commentary by Brown
The commentary consists of an overall introduction, introductions to Matthew and Luke’s account respectively, and then commentary, running section by section of each narrative. This includes Brown’s own translation of the text, notes on the text, including textual variants, and commentary. In addition to overall bibliographies, Brown offers a bibliography for each section. He also includes a number of appendices on the genealogies, the Birth at Bethlehem, virginal conception and the charge of illegitimacy, the census, and midsrash.
I will offer here some overall highlights, rather than a lengthy discussion of a lengthy commentary. First of all, it is Brown’s theory that the infancy narratives came last in the formation of the gospels, the passion narratives being first, and then the ministry narratives. One of the big questions is why these narratives are so different and Brown would chalk this up to the theology of each evangelist, which he develops in the commentaries.
First, with Matthew, he emphasizes how Matthew shows Jesus to be Son of God and son of David, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, key for a Jewish-Christian audience. We see this in the genealogy, the five Old Testament texts which Brown would suggest may have been interpolated into an earlier pre-Matthean tradition, particularly Isaiah 7:14, which he deals with at length, as well as the visits of Magi, Herod’s attempt to kill him, and the flight to Egypt, a kind of recapitulation of Israel’s history. I was also struck with the thread of Joseph’s implicit obedience throughout. Joseph shines for this brief moment, and then slips from the scene.
The commentary on Luke focuses the transitional character of the infancy narratives, even as Acts 1-2 focuses on the transition from the ministry of Jesus to the church. The annunciation stories echo those of the births of Samuel and Samson, upon whom the Spirit dwelt. At the visit of Mary, who had conceived by the Holy Spirit, to Elizabeth, John, in utero, testifies to the coming of Jesus as Elizabeth speaks in the fullness of the Spirit. This anticipates the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. Brown also gives extensive attention to the parallel annunciations, birth narratives, and subsequent hymns. He also offers intriguing ideas about the connections of Simeon and Anna to the anawim and the Essene sect at Qumran. He observes the intensification of each of these for Jesus, showing how John is the lesser forerunner we will encounter in the following chapters.
The work reflects the historical, form, and source criticism of Brown’s time. Brown moderates some of the radical skepticism that would question the historicity of these events. Most notably, he defends the virgin conception (but not necessarily birth) of Jesus and the Davidic descent, but considers the claims of a Bethlehem birth weaker (despite this being a commonality of the two accounts), and believes Luke was in error about a census under Quirinius. He would not consider such passages such as the Magnificat as ipsissima verba of Mary, being skeptical that testimony could have come through Mary or her family to Luke.
While Brown, in this work, is more skeptical about the historicity of various aspects of these narratives than I am, it is wonderful to read with this scholar who has read scripture so closely. Having written narratives of local history, drawing on various sources, I am more sympathetic than I once was to his exploration of how Matthew and Luke composed these narratives. But I suspect that no two people who studied what I wrote could dissect the sources in the same way. There is a speculative element of this and I am more appreciative of the rhetorical criticism that looks at the final form of a work and its theological purpose. I think this is where Brown seems to be on the most solid ground.
My review is based on the first edition of this work. A revised edition was published in 1999, a year after his death. I have not had the chance to compare the two and to see if Brown’s views changed on any matters. At very least, it may reflect more current scholarship. This is well worth obtaining for any who expect to preach on these texts and offered rich devotional reflection for me.
This has been on my shelves a long time, a library copy picked up at a sale many years ago. More recently, it has been joined by Brown’s two volume The Death of the Messiah. I decided for Advent this year, it would be a good time to finally dive into this magisterial commentary by Brown
The commentary consists of an overall introduction, introductions to Matthew and Luke’s account respectively, and then commentary, running section by section of each narrative. This includes Brown’s own translation of the text, notes on the text, including textual variants, and commentary. In addition to overall bibliographies, Brown offers a bibliography for each section. He also includes a number of appendices on the genealogies, the Birth at Bethlehem, virginal conception and the charge of illegitimacy, the census, and midsrash.
I will offer here some overall highlights, rather than a lengthy discussion of a lengthy commentary. First of all, it is Brown’s theory that the infancy narratives came last in the formation of the gospels, the passion narratives being first, and then the ministry narratives. One of the big questions is why these narratives are so different and Brown would chalk this up to the theology of each evangelist, which he develops in the commentaries.
First, with Matthew, he emphasizes how Matthew shows Jesus to be Son of God and son of David, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, key for a Jewish-Christian audience. We see this in the genealogy, the five Old Testament texts which Brown would suggest may have been interpolated into an earlier pre-Matthean tradition, particularly Isaiah 7:14, which he deals with at length, as well as the visits of Magi, Herod’s attempt to kill him, and the flight to Egypt, a kind of recapitulation of Israel’s history. I was also struck with the thread of Joseph’s implicit obedience throughout. Joseph shines for this brief moment, and then slips from the scene.
The commentary on Luke focuses the transitional character of the infancy narratives, even as Acts 1-2 focuses on the transition from the ministry of Jesus to the church. The annunciation stories echo those of the births of Samuel and Samson, upon whom the Spirit dwelt. At the visit of Mary, who had conceived by the Holy Spirit, to Elizabeth, John, in utero, testifies to the coming of Jesus as Elizabeth speaks in the fullness of the Spirit. This anticipates the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. Brown also gives extensive attention to the parallel annunciations, birth narratives, and subsequent hymns. He also offers intriguing ideas about the connections of Simeon and Anna to the anawim and the Essene sect at Qumran. He observes the intensification of each of these for Jesus, showing how John is the lesser forerunner we will encounter in the following chapters.
The work reflects the historical, form, and source criticism of Brown’s time. Brown moderates some of the radical skepticism that would question the historicity of these events. Most notably, he defends the virgin conception (but not necessarily birth) of Jesus and the Davidic descent, but considers the claims of a Bethlehem birth weaker (despite this being a commonality of the two accounts), and believes Luke was in error about a census under Quirinius. He would not consider such passages such as the Magnificat as ipsissima verba of Mary, being skeptical that testimony could have come through Mary or her family to Luke.
While Brown, in this work, is more skeptical about the historicity of various aspects of these narratives than I am, it is wonderful to read with this scholar who has read scripture so closely. Having written narratives of local history, drawing on various sources, I am more sympathetic than I once was to his exploration of how Matthew and Luke composed these narratives. But I suspect that no two people who studied what I wrote could dissect the sources in the same way. There is a speculative element of this and I am more appreciative of the rhetorical criticism that looks at the final form of a work and its theological purpose. I think this is where Brown seems to be on the most solid ground.
My review is based on the first edition of this work. A revised edition was published in 1999, a year after his death. I have not had the chance to compare the two and to see if Brown’s views changed on any matters. At very least, it may reflect more current scholarship. This is well worth obtaining for any who expect to preach on these texts and offered rich devotional reflection for me.
March 20, 2015
This book is a classic of biblical exegesis. As a layperson, I’ve no doubt that this book owes much to other scholars, and in the time since this was published much scholarly debate has continued beyond what is in these pages. However, I’m ignorant of most of it. In my view, this is an incredibly well-written and orderly exegesis of the birth narratives found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. “It is the central contention of this volume that the infancy narratives are worthy vehicles of the Gospel message; indeed, each is the essential Gospel story in miniature.” (7) Brown does much to describe the purpose of the two gospels, and how the writers used their respective stories to provide the foundation for their point of view. For instance, regarding Matthew, “These five books have been seen to constitute a Christian Pentateuch based on a typology between Christ and Moses. In particular, the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes have been comopared with the scene of Moses on Sinai and the Ten Commandments. There are real difficulties about this theory, even though it may contain elements of truth. It is important background for the thesis to be mentioned below that the Matthean infancy narrative deliberately patterns the birth of Jesus on the birth of Moses, and that there are five episodes in the infancy narrative centered around the five fulfillment citations.” (48)
To begin with, there are a number of interesting issues raised by the birth narratives. “Luke describes JBap as acknowledging Jesus even before birth (1:41, 44). Others would see an anti-Docetist aspect in the emphasis on the birth of Jesus. More plausible is the suggestion that the story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was intended as a response to a Judaism skeptical about a Messiah who came from Galilee (John:41-42,52).” (28) “The addition of these stories to the Gospel proper is thus intelligible as part of a Christological process—a process which explains well why they appear in the later Gospels rather than in Mark. (John took another Christological route, namely through pre-existence.) Once they were attached, however, they did begin to give a biographical cast to Matthew’s and Luke’s account. These Gospels now began with a conception and birth, continued through a public life, and ended with a death and resurrection. On first reading, such a biography makes perfect sense, but upon reflection many features are puzzling. If Herod and all Jerusalem knew of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem (Matt 2:3), and indeed Herod slaughtered the children of a whole town in the course of looking for Jesus (2:16), why is it that later in the ministry no one seems to know of Jesus’ marvelous origins (13:54-55), and Herod’s son recalls nothing about him (14:1-2)? If it was made clear through an angelic message to the parents of Jesus who Jesus was (the Davidic Messiah, the Son of God), why is it so difficult for his disciples to discover this later on, even though Mary was alive at the time of the ministry? Indeed, why does Mary herself seem to be an outsider to the family of true disciples (Matt 12:46-50)? If JBap was a relative of Jesus who recognized him even before his birth (Luke 1:41, 44), why does JBap give no indication during the ministry of a previous knowledge of Jesus and indeed seem to be puzzled by him (7:19)?” (32) Brown states that “Commentators of times past have harmonized these different details into a consecutive narrative, so that the ordinary Christian is often not even aware of a difficulty when Lucan shepherds and Matthean magi fraternize in the Christmas crib scene.” (35) Unfortunately, there are real problems posed by the infancy narratives when related to the rest of the Gospels. “The Gospel proper never refers back to the special information supplied by the infancy narrative, e.g., to a birth at Bethlehem, to a major stir caused by that birth when the magi came to Jerusalem, or even to the virginal conception. No one in the ministry appears to have profited from the Christological insights revealed during Jesus’ conception and infancy.” (49)
Brown offers a number of explanations for why different components were included. “The Ubi (Where) of Jesus’ birth, at Bethlehem, underlines his identity as son of David. The paradox that Gentiles (the magi) react to this birth by belief and homage begins to explain how Jesus is to function as son of Abraham.” (53) Similarly, “The genealogy in Gen 5 leads from Adam to Noah, for the genealogy of Adam is a genealogy of his descendants, while the genealogy of Jesus is a genealogy of his ancestors. In Christian salvific history there can be no genealogy of Jesus’ descendants because history has reached its goal in Jesus.” (67) “In post-biblical Jewish piety these extraordinary unions and initiatives were seen as the work of the Holy Spirit. These women were held up as examples of how God uses the unexpected to triumph over human obstacles and intervenes on behalf of His planned Messiah. It is the combination of the scandalous or irregular union and of divine intervention through the woman that explains best Matthew’s choice in the genealogy. There was divine intervention in several other births he lists (e.g., in overcoming the sterility of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel), but Matthew does not mention the women involved because there was nothing scandalous about their union. The latter element is important because Matthew has chosen women who foreshadow the role of Mary, the wife of Joseph.” (74) Concerning the “how” of the conception of Jesus’ conception, Brown makes some interesting points. “While Matthew’s discussion of this double “How” is primarily theological, we cannot overlook the possibility of an apologetic motif in his presentation. In Appendix V we shall see the history of the Jewish charge that Jesus was illegitimate. If that charge were already in circulation when Matthew was writing, his narrative could be read as an effective response to it, even as the peculiarly Matthean narrative of the guard at the tomb (27:62-66; 28:11-15) constituted an effective response to the Jewish charge that Jesus’ disciples had stolen his body from the tomb. (For a structural resemblance between the two narratives, see footnote 21). If the marital situation between Joseph and Mary were not a fact and could have been created according to the dictates of Christian imagination, it is difficult to see why a situation less open to scandal was not contrived. For instance, instead of picturing Mary as already pregnant, the narrator could have imagined her as betrothed to Joseph but without child. Then he could have had the angel of the Lord appear and begin his message with ‘Joseph, son of David, hasten to take Mary your wife into your home.’ Everything else in 1:20-25 could follow, and there would be no hint of scandal. (Basically, the setting in Luke is exactly like the one I have just presented, with the exception that the angel appears to Mary.) However, as Matthew’s account now stands, it means that Jesus will necessarily be born early after the parents come to live together—too early to escape notice and gossip. But suppose that the marriage situation and the pregnancy as described were historical facts rather than the product of imagination, then we can understand why a charge of illegitimacy arose among Jesus’ apponents, a charge that may be foreshadowed in 1:18-19.” (143)
There are a number of non-biblical traditions, such as are captured in Philo’s Life of Moses and Josephus’ Antiquities, that “offer indisputable examples of midrashic tradition circulating in the first Christian century. The following details, taken mostly from Josephus, heighten the already-noted biblical parallels between the infancies of Moses and Jesus.” (114) Brown sites:
1) The warning to Pharaoh that there would be a Hebrew born that would threaten the kingdom
2) The forewarning to Pharaoh came from one of his sacred scribes, similar to the pre-Matthean story
3) Other stories not that the forewarning came to Pharaoh from a dream interpreted by his magi, with the obvious parallels
4) Pharaoh was startled as well as the Egyptians, with parallel language regarding Herod and all Jerusalem in the gospels
5) Pharaoh’s plan to massacre the children was thwarted through God’s intervention in a dream to Moses’s mother, paralleling Jesus.
Brown summarizes the scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. “The child to be born was not the Messiah, for messianism had not yet developed to the point of expecting a single future king. Scholars are not agreed on the identity of the child, but at most it may refer to the birth of a Davidic prince who would deliver Judah from its enemies. An ancient Jewish interpretation, known to Justin (Dialogue lxvii 1) identified the child as Hezekiah, Ahaz’ son and successor, one of the few truly religious monarchs of the House of David.” (147)
Table VIII in the book provides the five steps common to Ishmael, Isaac, Samson, John the Baptist, and Jesus found in their biblical birth annunciations: 1. Appearance of an angel or the Lord, 2. Fear or prostration by the visionary, 3. The divine message with a specific formula, 4. Objection by the visionary, and 5. The giving of a sign for reassurance that the vision is authentic. (156)
Brown notes the irreconcilability of some of the facts presented by Matthew and Luke. “Although Luke 2 also has Jesus born at Bethlehem, there is no mention of an intervention by Herod, of the coming of the magi, of a massacre, or of a flight to Egypt. Even the most determined harmonizer should be foiled by the impossibility of reconciling a journey of the family from Bethlehem to Egypt with Luke’s account of their taking the child to Jerusalem when he was forty days old and their going on from Jerusalem to Nazareth where they stayed.” (189)
In summary, “Luke is more interested in establishing the continuity of the Christian movement with Israel than in anti-synagogue apologetics. His heroine Mary will embody that continuity—she responds obediently to God’s word from the first as a representative of the Anawim of Israel; she appears in the ministry as a representative of the ideals of true discipleship; and she endures till Pentecost to become a Christian and a member of the Church.” (499)
These are just a few of the points that I found interesting. In truth, there are hundreds of pages of analysis that is as in depth or more. This is a book that deserves to stay on the shelf for easy access and reference.
See my other reviews here!
To begin with, there are a number of interesting issues raised by the birth narratives. “Luke describes JBap as acknowledging Jesus even before birth (1:41, 44). Others would see an anti-Docetist aspect in the emphasis on the birth of Jesus. More plausible is the suggestion that the story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was intended as a response to a Judaism skeptical about a Messiah who came from Galilee (John:41-42,52).” (28) “The addition of these stories to the Gospel proper is thus intelligible as part of a Christological process—a process which explains well why they appear in the later Gospels rather than in Mark. (John took another Christological route, namely through pre-existence.) Once they were attached, however, they did begin to give a biographical cast to Matthew’s and Luke’s account. These Gospels now began with a conception and birth, continued through a public life, and ended with a death and resurrection. On first reading, such a biography makes perfect sense, but upon reflection many features are puzzling. If Herod and all Jerusalem knew of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem (Matt 2:3), and indeed Herod slaughtered the children of a whole town in the course of looking for Jesus (2:16), why is it that later in the ministry no one seems to know of Jesus’ marvelous origins (13:54-55), and Herod’s son recalls nothing about him (14:1-2)? If it was made clear through an angelic message to the parents of Jesus who Jesus was (the Davidic Messiah, the Son of God), why is it so difficult for his disciples to discover this later on, even though Mary was alive at the time of the ministry? Indeed, why does Mary herself seem to be an outsider to the family of true disciples (Matt 12:46-50)? If JBap was a relative of Jesus who recognized him even before his birth (Luke 1:41, 44), why does JBap give no indication during the ministry of a previous knowledge of Jesus and indeed seem to be puzzled by him (7:19)?” (32) Brown states that “Commentators of times past have harmonized these different details into a consecutive narrative, so that the ordinary Christian is often not even aware of a difficulty when Lucan shepherds and Matthean magi fraternize in the Christmas crib scene.” (35) Unfortunately, there are real problems posed by the infancy narratives when related to the rest of the Gospels. “The Gospel proper never refers back to the special information supplied by the infancy narrative, e.g., to a birth at Bethlehem, to a major stir caused by that birth when the magi came to Jerusalem, or even to the virginal conception. No one in the ministry appears to have profited from the Christological insights revealed during Jesus’ conception and infancy.” (49)
Brown offers a number of explanations for why different components were included. “The Ubi (Where) of Jesus’ birth, at Bethlehem, underlines his identity as son of David. The paradox that Gentiles (the magi) react to this birth by belief and homage begins to explain how Jesus is to function as son of Abraham.” (53) Similarly, “The genealogy in Gen 5 leads from Adam to Noah, for the genealogy of Adam is a genealogy of his descendants, while the genealogy of Jesus is a genealogy of his ancestors. In Christian salvific history there can be no genealogy of Jesus’ descendants because history has reached its goal in Jesus.” (67) “In post-biblical Jewish piety these extraordinary unions and initiatives were seen as the work of the Holy Spirit. These women were held up as examples of how God uses the unexpected to triumph over human obstacles and intervenes on behalf of His planned Messiah. It is the combination of the scandalous or irregular union and of divine intervention through the woman that explains best Matthew’s choice in the genealogy. There was divine intervention in several other births he lists (e.g., in overcoming the sterility of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel), but Matthew does not mention the women involved because there was nothing scandalous about their union. The latter element is important because Matthew has chosen women who foreshadow the role of Mary, the wife of Joseph.” (74) Concerning the “how” of the conception of Jesus’ conception, Brown makes some interesting points. “While Matthew’s discussion of this double “How” is primarily theological, we cannot overlook the possibility of an apologetic motif in his presentation. In Appendix V we shall see the history of the Jewish charge that Jesus was illegitimate. If that charge were already in circulation when Matthew was writing, his narrative could be read as an effective response to it, even as the peculiarly Matthean narrative of the guard at the tomb (27:62-66; 28:11-15) constituted an effective response to the Jewish charge that Jesus’ disciples had stolen his body from the tomb. (For a structural resemblance between the two narratives, see footnote 21). If the marital situation between Joseph and Mary were not a fact and could have been created according to the dictates of Christian imagination, it is difficult to see why a situation less open to scandal was not contrived. For instance, instead of picturing Mary as already pregnant, the narrator could have imagined her as betrothed to Joseph but without child. Then he could have had the angel of the Lord appear and begin his message with ‘Joseph, son of David, hasten to take Mary your wife into your home.’ Everything else in 1:20-25 could follow, and there would be no hint of scandal. (Basically, the setting in Luke is exactly like the one I have just presented, with the exception that the angel appears to Mary.) However, as Matthew’s account now stands, it means that Jesus will necessarily be born early after the parents come to live together—too early to escape notice and gossip. But suppose that the marriage situation and the pregnancy as described were historical facts rather than the product of imagination, then we can understand why a charge of illegitimacy arose among Jesus’ apponents, a charge that may be foreshadowed in 1:18-19.” (143)
There are a number of non-biblical traditions, such as are captured in Philo’s Life of Moses and Josephus’ Antiquities, that “offer indisputable examples of midrashic tradition circulating in the first Christian century. The following details, taken mostly from Josephus, heighten the already-noted biblical parallels between the infancies of Moses and Jesus.” (114) Brown sites:
1) The warning to Pharaoh that there would be a Hebrew born that would threaten the kingdom
2) The forewarning to Pharaoh came from one of his sacred scribes, similar to the pre-Matthean story
3) Other stories not that the forewarning came to Pharaoh from a dream interpreted by his magi, with the obvious parallels
4) Pharaoh was startled as well as the Egyptians, with parallel language regarding Herod and all Jerusalem in the gospels
5) Pharaoh’s plan to massacre the children was thwarted through God’s intervention in a dream to Moses’s mother, paralleling Jesus.
Brown summarizes the scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. “The child to be born was not the Messiah, for messianism had not yet developed to the point of expecting a single future king. Scholars are not agreed on the identity of the child, but at most it may refer to the birth of a Davidic prince who would deliver Judah from its enemies. An ancient Jewish interpretation, known to Justin (Dialogue lxvii 1) identified the child as Hezekiah, Ahaz’ son and successor, one of the few truly religious monarchs of the House of David.” (147)
Table VIII in the book provides the five steps common to Ishmael, Isaac, Samson, John the Baptist, and Jesus found in their biblical birth annunciations: 1. Appearance of an angel or the Lord, 2. Fear or prostration by the visionary, 3. The divine message with a specific formula, 4. Objection by the visionary, and 5. The giving of a sign for reassurance that the vision is authentic. (156)
Brown notes the irreconcilability of some of the facts presented by Matthew and Luke. “Although Luke 2 also has Jesus born at Bethlehem, there is no mention of an intervention by Herod, of the coming of the magi, of a massacre, or of a flight to Egypt. Even the most determined harmonizer should be foiled by the impossibility of reconciling a journey of the family from Bethlehem to Egypt with Luke’s account of their taking the child to Jerusalem when he was forty days old and their going on from Jerusalem to Nazareth where they stayed.” (189)
In summary, “Luke is more interested in establishing the continuity of the Christian movement with Israel than in anti-synagogue apologetics. His heroine Mary will embody that continuity—she responds obediently to God’s word from the first as a representative of the Anawim of Israel; she appears in the ministry as a representative of the ideals of true discipleship; and she endures till Pentecost to become a Christian and a member of the Church.” (499)
These are just a few of the points that I found interesting. In truth, there are hundreds of pages of analysis that is as in depth or more. This is a book that deserves to stay on the shelf for easy access and reference.
See my other reviews here!
November 3, 2020
I took Ray Brown's 'Survey of Apocalyptic Literature' course at Union Theological Seminary in New York during the second semester of 1977/78. Having become increasingly interested in biblical studies during seminary, I used the class as an occasion to do something original, namely an exhaustive concordance of all number references (except the number "one") in all the Hebrew and Christian canons as well as in the epigraphical and pseudepigraphal fringes of both. The canonical work was easy, there being a plethora of concordances available. The extra-canonical work was, to our knowledge, original. Having done this and presenting Brown with the data, I asked him to pick a number and, so, ended up submitting both an essay on "fourteen" and the weighty concordance--with charts and graphs and tables--itself.
Brown was popular so his lectures were supplemented by discussion seminars led by a teaching assistant. She, when informed of what I was doing, thought I was failing to follow her own emphasis on the secondary literature and objected to the project. I ignored her and proceeded. When the paper and concordance were returned, her comments were quite negative. Brown, however, had read the thing after she had and penned his own comments over hers. Happily, he defended me on every point. Having consistently stuck to primary sources throughout my biblical studies at the expense of the secondary commentaries because I wanted to form my own opinions without being prejudiced by "the experts", Brown's defense felt like a vindication and, of course, a recognition of the enormous amount of work I'd done.
Since graduating from seminary and having pretty thoroughly read over the primary sources of the first several centuries of the Church, I have allowed myself more reading of the secondary materials. One of them was Brown's own treatment of the birth and infancy narratives, a book a read during the Christmas season, appropriately enough. In reading 'The Birth of the Messiah' one can see why he respected thoroughness, his own work being, they say, "definitive." However, while nearly exhaustive so far as the Judeo-Christian traditions are concerned, this book may be faulted on being weak on the relevant pagan traditions and for being rather dry.
Brown was popular so his lectures were supplemented by discussion seminars led by a teaching assistant. She, when informed of what I was doing, thought I was failing to follow her own emphasis on the secondary literature and objected to the project. I ignored her and proceeded. When the paper and concordance were returned, her comments were quite negative. Brown, however, had read the thing after she had and penned his own comments over hers. Happily, he defended me on every point. Having consistently stuck to primary sources throughout my biblical studies at the expense of the secondary commentaries because I wanted to form my own opinions without being prejudiced by "the experts", Brown's defense felt like a vindication and, of course, a recognition of the enormous amount of work I'd done.
Since graduating from seminary and having pretty thoroughly read over the primary sources of the first several centuries of the Church, I have allowed myself more reading of the secondary materials. One of them was Brown's own treatment of the birth and infancy narratives, a book a read during the Christmas season, appropriately enough. In reading 'The Birth of the Messiah' one can see why he respected thoroughness, his own work being, they say, "definitive." However, while nearly exhaustive so far as the Judeo-Christian traditions are concerned, this book may be faulted on being weak on the relevant pagan traditions and for being rather dry.
December 23, 2015
Everyone thinks they know the Christmas story, but Raymond Brown’s commentary on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke convinced me that actually I hardly know them at all. Brown unpacks layer upon layer to show that the Gospel writers had some very special things to say when they crafted these stories. In particular, Brown argues, they tell us “the essence of the Good News, namely, that God has made Himself present to us in the life of His Messiah who walked on this earth, so truly present that the birth of the Messiah was the birth of God’s Son.” The Birth of the Messiah is a breathtakingly erudite and sophisticated study that dedicates over 600 pages of tiny print to analyzing just four chapters of the Bible. It is a rare achievement when a book published in 1979 is still the recognized authority on the topic 36 years later.
Read my full review here: http://wordsbecamebooks.com/2015/12/1...
Read my full review here: http://wordsbecamebooks.com/2015/12/1...
November 17, 2014
Brown presents a thorough study of the birth narratives from a moderate viewpoint. He acknowledges the potential limitations presented by Catholic censors, and indicates no limitations on what he has written. This version includes an updated look at more recent works in the appendix. The final 15 or so pages provide a thoughtful conclusion to a fine work.
Brown is no-nonsense but always a gentleman when evaluating the work of other scholars and theologians. He leaves the reader to ultimately make their own conclusions about the historicity of the birth stories, and he leaves the reader with great respect and admiration for the gospel writers.
Brown is no-nonsense but always a gentleman when evaluating the work of other scholars and theologians. He leaves the reader to ultimately make their own conclusions about the historicity of the birth stories, and he leaves the reader with great respect and admiration for the gospel writers.
January 27, 2016
A solid commentary on the Birth Narratives in the Gospels (Matt and Luke). This book is an excellent supplement to commentaries and provides more information on this niche area of scholarship. Brown's method is heavily dependent on historical and source criticism and his frequent skepticism and intentionally contradictory positions are sometimes irritating. I think what Brown does is open up questions about the birth narratives that we would normally not pose. While he does not answer all of these, he does provide thorough discussion and analysis that is certainly helpful.
September 23, 2022
This is an incredible volume with great commentary on the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. It’s actually written so that (mostly) a layperson can read it even without much background to the New Testament or the Gospels.
I left some of the sections to be read later as more of a reference, I found that reading 100 pages on the genealogies to be a little more detailed than I was interested in. Some other sections are the same way but in general I loved Brown’s exegesis and theories on these birth stories.
Namely: Matthew was written by a Jewish Christian likely from Pharisaic training, he viewed Jesus as the embodiment of the story of Israel (Son of David in the genealogy) hence the focus on Joseph in the story - and the parallels to the Joseph in Genesis. This is why Matthew focuses on many OT fulfillments/citations in the birth story and elsewhere and why Jesus mirrors Moses in many ways (entrance to and flight out of Egypt). He also noted the emphasis of Jesus to the Gentiles (culminating in M 28 at the end of the gospel) and that is why he also emphasizes Jesus being from the seed of Abraham - reference to Genesis and that all nations - ie gentiles - will be blessed through Abraham and his seed.
His theory on Luke I found to be a bit more pedestrian but still interesting: a highly literate Gentile (or proselyte to Judaism) that writes in highly literate Greek but lacks understanding of Judaism. Example in the story of the need to present details of Mary’s purification and that Luke seems to not understand the exact purpose of the purification. I did enjoy the sections on the census and the confusion around the dating of Jesus’s birth as compared to the time of Herod and the reign of Quirinis. He notes that Luke wants to prove that Jesus is literally the Son of God through the virginal conception of Mary and why he makes her the focus of his narrative. This is also shown by the genealogy tracing Jesus back to Adam, literally the son of God and having that genealogy right after the announcement of Jesus at his baptism. There is also an emphasis to this being a “new creation” and not something that was heavily expected from the Jewish scriptures - ie that the messiah would come from Nazareth.
There is also some great discussion on why the Bethlehem vs Nazareth origins are found in the Gospels and lots of other great commentary in them. Helps to explain why the birth stories are just fundamentally different and serve different theological ideas and motives. Really great commentary that I recommend!
I left some of the sections to be read later as more of a reference, I found that reading 100 pages on the genealogies to be a little more detailed than I was interested in. Some other sections are the same way but in general I loved Brown’s exegesis and theories on these birth stories.
Namely: Matthew was written by a Jewish Christian likely from Pharisaic training, he viewed Jesus as the embodiment of the story of Israel (Son of David in the genealogy) hence the focus on Joseph in the story - and the parallels to the Joseph in Genesis. This is why Matthew focuses on many OT fulfillments/citations in the birth story and elsewhere and why Jesus mirrors Moses in many ways (entrance to and flight out of Egypt). He also noted the emphasis of Jesus to the Gentiles (culminating in M 28 at the end of the gospel) and that is why he also emphasizes Jesus being from the seed of Abraham - reference to Genesis and that all nations - ie gentiles - will be blessed through Abraham and his seed.
His theory on Luke I found to be a bit more pedestrian but still interesting: a highly literate Gentile (or proselyte to Judaism) that writes in highly literate Greek but lacks understanding of Judaism. Example in the story of the need to present details of Mary’s purification and that Luke seems to not understand the exact purpose of the purification. I did enjoy the sections on the census and the confusion around the dating of Jesus’s birth as compared to the time of Herod and the reign of Quirinis. He notes that Luke wants to prove that Jesus is literally the Son of God through the virginal conception of Mary and why he makes her the focus of his narrative. This is also shown by the genealogy tracing Jesus back to Adam, literally the son of God and having that genealogy right after the announcement of Jesus at his baptism. There is also an emphasis to this being a “new creation” and not something that was heavily expected from the Jewish scriptures - ie that the messiah would come from Nazareth.
There is also some great discussion on why the Bethlehem vs Nazareth origins are found in the Gospels and lots of other great commentary in them. Helps to explain why the birth stories are just fundamentally different and serve different theological ideas and motives. Really great commentary that I recommend!
August 22, 2013
Should you need some sound theological analysis of the Nativity (as I did, when working on a book about Christmas), you can do no better than Raymond Brown's "The Birth of the Messiah." Though you should also be warned that if you're looking for affirmation of the manger-angels-December-25th-star-virgin-birth stuff, you're in for a bit of a correction. Many people are not particularly fond of being told that the whole thing is a contextual origin story, appropriate to 1st-century readership. (Not unlike our superhero origin stories, when you get down to it.)
January 9, 2015
An amazing opus. Written with skill and depth, critical but still open for understanding and reception of the Christian tradition.
February 7, 2017
You'll never read the gospels the same way again!
August 24, 2024
THE GREATEST CATHOLIC BIBLICAL SCHOLAR LOOKS AT THE BIRTH STORIES
Father Raymond Brown (1928-1998) was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th century. He asks early in this 1979 book, "If Herod and all Jerusalem knew of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem (Mt 2:3), and indeed Herod slaughtered the children of a whole town in the course of looking for Jesus (2:16), why is it that later in the ministry no one seems to know of Jesus' marvelous origins (13:54-55)... If [John the Baptist] was a relative of Jesus who recognized him even before his birth [Lk 1:41, 44], why does [he] give no indication during the ministry of a previous knowledge of Jesus and indeed seem to be puzzled by him (7:19)?" (Pg. 31-32)
He observes, "The rest of the Matthean infancy narrative is quite different from Luke's... Commentators of times past have harmonized these different details into a continuous narrative... But if originally there was one narrative, how did it ever become fragmented into the two different accounts we have now?" (Pg. 35)
He adds, "According to Luke 1:26 and 2:39 Mary lives in Nazareth, and so the census of Augustus is invoked to explain how the child was born in Bethlehem, away from home. In Matthew there is no hint of a COMING to Bethlehem... A second difficulty is that Luke tells us that the family returned peaceably to Nazareth after the birth at Bethlehem (2:22, 39); this is irreconcilable with Matthew's implication (2:16) that the child was almost two years old when the family fled from Bethlehem to Egypt..." (Pg. 36)
He rejects the argument that Matthew 1:1-16 gives us Joseph's genealogy, while Luke 3:23-38 gives us Mary's: "this solution cannot be taken seriously: a genealogy traced through the mother is not normal in Judaism, and Luke makes it clear that he is tracing Jesus' descent through Joseph." (Pg. 89)
Of the star, he wrote, "A star that rose in the East, appeared over Jerusalem, turned south to Bethlehem, and then came to rest over a house would have constituted a celestial phenomenon unparalleled in astronomical history; yet it received no notice in the records of the times." (Pg. 188) He observes that "The suspicious Herod makes no attempt to follow the magi in their five-mile journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. One can imagine the impression that the exotic magi from the East with royal gifts would make in a small village; yet when they go away, Herod's intelligence system cannot discover which child they visited." (Pg. 188-189)
Of the census of Luke 2:2, he states, "In Roman censuses there is no clear evidence of a practice of going to an ANCESTRAL city to be enrolled; the oft-cited examples from Egypt are not the same as what Luke describes... we have no real parallel to the 'kata oikian' censuses in Egypt where people were registered in the area where their home [oikia] or property was found; Luke refers to a census by ancestry." (Pg. 396) Later, he adds, "we have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities... the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod..." (Pg. 413)
Of attempts to harmonize the two genealogies by claiming that one is Jesus' "legal" genealogy, and the other the "natural," he argues, "Jacob and Eli would have been full or blood brothers if 'Matthan' ... and 'Matthat' ... are variants of a name borne by one man. But the father of Matthan/Mattht was ELEAZAR according to Matthew, while he was LEVI according to Luke. Are we to assume a second levirate marriage to explain this?" (Pg. 503-504)
He rejects Sir William Ramsay's apologetic about the census: "Quirinius is identified as a chief magistrate, while Servillius is not; but Ramsay argues that Quirinius and Servillius were of equal status, and indeed Quirinius was legate of Syria at the same time that Servillius was legate of Galatia... Obviously, Ramsay's theory goes considerably beyond what the inscription says.... [and does not lessen] the difficulty of proving that Quirinius had an earlier governorship in Syria during which he might have conducted a census." (Pg. 551)
For anyone even remotely interested in biblical scholarship about the birth and infancy narratives of Jesus, this book is absolutely essential "must reading"!
Father Raymond Brown (1928-1998) was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th century. He asks early in this 1979 book, "If Herod and all Jerusalem knew of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem (Mt 2:3), and indeed Herod slaughtered the children of a whole town in the course of looking for Jesus (2:16), why is it that later in the ministry no one seems to know of Jesus' marvelous origins (13:54-55)... If [John the Baptist] was a relative of Jesus who recognized him even before his birth [Lk 1:41, 44], why does [he] give no indication during the ministry of a previous knowledge of Jesus and indeed seem to be puzzled by him (7:19)?" (Pg. 31-32)
He observes, "The rest of the Matthean infancy narrative is quite different from Luke's... Commentators of times past have harmonized these different details into a continuous narrative... But if originally there was one narrative, how did it ever become fragmented into the two different accounts we have now?" (Pg. 35)
He adds, "According to Luke 1:26 and 2:39 Mary lives in Nazareth, and so the census of Augustus is invoked to explain how the child was born in Bethlehem, away from home. In Matthew there is no hint of a COMING to Bethlehem... A second difficulty is that Luke tells us that the family returned peaceably to Nazareth after the birth at Bethlehem (2:22, 39); this is irreconcilable with Matthew's implication (2:16) that the child was almost two years old when the family fled from Bethlehem to Egypt..." (Pg. 36)
He rejects the argument that Matthew 1:1-16 gives us Joseph's genealogy, while Luke 3:23-38 gives us Mary's: "this solution cannot be taken seriously: a genealogy traced through the mother is not normal in Judaism, and Luke makes it clear that he is tracing Jesus' descent through Joseph." (Pg. 89)
Of the star, he wrote, "A star that rose in the East, appeared over Jerusalem, turned south to Bethlehem, and then came to rest over a house would have constituted a celestial phenomenon unparalleled in astronomical history; yet it received no notice in the records of the times." (Pg. 188) He observes that "The suspicious Herod makes no attempt to follow the magi in their five-mile journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. One can imagine the impression that the exotic magi from the East with royal gifts would make in a small village; yet when they go away, Herod's intelligence system cannot discover which child they visited." (Pg. 188-189)
Of the census of Luke 2:2, he states, "In Roman censuses there is no clear evidence of a practice of going to an ANCESTRAL city to be enrolled; the oft-cited examples from Egypt are not the same as what Luke describes... we have no real parallel to the 'kata oikian' censuses in Egypt where people were registered in the area where their home [oikia] or property was found; Luke refers to a census by ancestry." (Pg. 396) Later, he adds, "we have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities... the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod..." (Pg. 413)
Of attempts to harmonize the two genealogies by claiming that one is Jesus' "legal" genealogy, and the other the "natural," he argues, "Jacob and Eli would have been full or blood brothers if 'Matthan' ... and 'Matthat' ... are variants of a name borne by one man. But the father of Matthan/Mattht was ELEAZAR according to Matthew, while he was LEVI according to Luke. Are we to assume a second levirate marriage to explain this?" (Pg. 503-504)
He rejects Sir William Ramsay's apologetic about the census: "Quirinius is identified as a chief magistrate, while Servillius is not; but Ramsay argues that Quirinius and Servillius were of equal status, and indeed Quirinius was legate of Syria at the same time that Servillius was legate of Galatia... Obviously, Ramsay's theory goes considerably beyond what the inscription says.... [and does not lessen] the difficulty of proving that Quirinius had an earlier governorship in Syria during which he might have conducted a census." (Pg. 551)
For anyone even remotely interested in biblical scholarship about the birth and infancy narratives of Jesus, this book is absolutely essential "must reading"!
July 5, 2017
Dr. Raymond E. Brown, S. S., has authored a commentary on the infancy narratives of Jesus found in
the gospels of Luke and Matthew. After the Theological Faculties at the Universities of Edinburgh,
Uppsala, and Louvain bestowed upon him honorary doctorates in Divinity and Theology between
the years of 1972-1976, Dr. Brown published the first edition of this book in March 1979. His scope
for this work aims to reach “fellow scholars, students of theology and of the Bible, and interested
Christians (p. 8). He has served as a Professor for a course on infancy narratives, which he taught at
Rome and New York.
His organization of the work systematically follows the narratives on which his commentary
is written. After translating the Scriptural verses on the infancy (First for the Gospel of Matthew,
then Luke), Brown provides notes on the various textual critiques and alternate translations,
historical backgrounds, and other fields of exegesis. He treats them separately so that the theology
of the respective gospels can emerge. With each of these sets of beliefs, He hopes to explain the
differences of the two narratives (by explaining why the authors chose to give differing accounts so
as to suit their differing perspectives).
He then proceeds to offer commentary on the verses, setting them into the theological
framework of the author. Examining many connections from the Gospels to the Old Testament,
Brown attempts to reconstruct how the Gospel author drew upon various materials. To Brown, the
infancy narratives serves as a microcosm of the entire gospel in which they appear. The Gospels
record the various miracles in Christ’s ministry; His birth one of the first miracles He performed. As
a miraculous event, it foreshadows later miraculous events in the life of Jesus. It also serves
Matthew’s purpose to connect Jesus to some Old Testament leaders with similar stories (such as
Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, and Elijah).
For example, the birth story parallels that of Moses. In both, a king hears of the eventual
birth of a child destined to bring freedom to people (Exodus 12:29, and Matthew 2:16-18), sends
out messengers to find dthe child, and orders a massacre of children in an attempt to kill the child.
The Egyptian Pharoah (either Sethos I or more probably his son Ramesses II) provides a parallel to
King Herod; both seek out a child. Since Moses became an integral part of Judaic tradition by
leading his people out of bondage, so too is Jesus presented to likewise act as God’s instrument to
save them again. Jesus’ acts in the temple parallel another Old Testament figure, Samuel, whose
parents were blessed (I Sam 2:20) just as Jesus’ parents were (Luke 2:34).
Brown deals with the chronology in Matthew. Examining the genealogy given in the opening
of that gospel (Matthew 1:1-17), he finds 3 kings missing so that 3 sets of 14 generations may be
maintained. Rather than reading “Joram was the father of Ahaziah, Ahaziah was the father of
Jehoash, Jehoash the father of Amaziah, Amaziah the father of Uzziah (as it should, to agree with the
books of Chronicles), it omits Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah entirely. These omitted kings were
descendants of King Ahab of Israel (I Kings 21:21), since Joram is Ahab’s son-in-law. Ahab is a king
whom God curses. Omitting them underscores Luke’s presentation of Jesus as a true son of God.
Uzziah was the regnal name of King Azariah, which was bound to create confusion to textual
copiers. Brown explains fully the intricate confusions such as these and their ramifications on the
questions of historicity of the family lines. In the first and third sections of the lineage, only 13
generations are found. Matthew is not writing history here. He records facts as it suits his
theological purposes. In forcing 3 groups of 14, Matthew resorts to a subtle association back to
David. Ancient Hebrew orthography counted the numeric value of the name of David to be 14
(Brown p 80). This, Brown explains, leads to Matthew’s purpose, to show Jesus to the Jews as the
long expected Davidic Messiah.
Such a designation did not fit Luke’s purposes, for Luke was by contrast a Greek writer.
Luke saw Jesus as a Messiah for the Gentiles and Greeks to whom salvation did not depend on being
Jewish. After the annunciation message from Gabriel on Davidic descent, Luke shifts his focus. After
Jesus is baptisted in the river Jordan, a voice from heaven proclaims that God’s beloved son is the
man standing before his cousin John the Baptist. At this point, Luke leads into his lineage and
concentrates on the child as a son of God. His audience consists of believers of less Judaic
background than that of Matthew; therefore, Luke writes of a more universal Savior. The child is
Son of God, since Luke traces the lineage back to Adam (Luke 3:25). No royal descent is favored,
since it is not via David’s son Solomon through which Luke traces Jesus’ descent. Luke’s purpose
here, as Brown explains, underlies the differences in lineage of Luke and Matthew. Luke provides a
point of continuity for Paul, who compares Jesus not only to Abraham (Gal 3:16), but also to Adam
(Romans 5:12-21). This underscores Luke’s purpose: that Jesus was descended from both God and
Man.
In an appendix, Brown deals with the genealogical discrepancy of the father of Joseph.
Matthew lists the man as Jacob and Luke lists him as Eli (Brown p 503-4). By consulting
Deuteronomy 25:5, he argues the case of levirate marriage. This concept emerged under the Torah
as a means of preserving a family. One man dying would leave his wife to his brother, so the widow
would marry her brother-in-law and continue the line of the elder brother. This problem, while met
in the main text of the book, receives full treatment in the first appendix so the flow of Brown’s
argument may not be interrupted by this discussion.
Brown also deals with the problem of Luke’s chronology. Luke records that Augustus
decreed a census while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1). Quirinius
began his duties there in A. D. 6. However, Herod, in whose reign Jesus was born by the account of
Luke 1 (since his mother was pregnant then), died in 4 B.C. This glaring problem likewise receives
full consideration in an appendix devoted to it alone. One solution argues that the Herod mentioned
was not Herod the Great, but his son Archelaus – ethnarch of Judea from 4 B.C. to A. D. 6 (Brown
548). After examining the evidence and various hypotheses (including one idea for a two-step
census completed under Quirinius), Brown sides against reconciling the first two chapters of Luke.
Brown concludes that Luke has authored for us a composite story setting the birth in combined
political decline of the accession of Archelaus with the governorship of Quirinius ten years later. For
both events, the Jews revolted and would look for a Messiah.
Brown employs several ancient and modern historians. For the ancient authors, Brown
refers to Tacitus, Josephus, Philo Judaeus, and Julius Africanus. The Greek Septuagint, as well as the
Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Bezae, are among his sources for Scriptural texts.
He examines a variety of modern authors as well, offering their ideas on each side of the matter
before reaching a conclusion.
the gospels of Luke and Matthew. After the Theological Faculties at the Universities of Edinburgh,
Uppsala, and Louvain bestowed upon him honorary doctorates in Divinity and Theology between
the years of 1972-1976, Dr. Brown published the first edition of this book in March 1979. His scope
for this work aims to reach “fellow scholars, students of theology and of the Bible, and interested
Christians (p. 8). He has served as a Professor for a course on infancy narratives, which he taught at
Rome and New York.
His organization of the work systematically follows the narratives on which his commentary
is written. After translating the Scriptural verses on the infancy (First for the Gospel of Matthew,
then Luke), Brown provides notes on the various textual critiques and alternate translations,
historical backgrounds, and other fields of exegesis. He treats them separately so that the theology
of the respective gospels can emerge. With each of these sets of beliefs, He hopes to explain the
differences of the two narratives (by explaining why the authors chose to give differing accounts so
as to suit their differing perspectives).
He then proceeds to offer commentary on the verses, setting them into the theological
framework of the author. Examining many connections from the Gospels to the Old Testament,
Brown attempts to reconstruct how the Gospel author drew upon various materials. To Brown, the
infancy narratives serves as a microcosm of the entire gospel in which they appear. The Gospels
record the various miracles in Christ’s ministry; His birth one of the first miracles He performed. As
a miraculous event, it foreshadows later miraculous events in the life of Jesus. It also serves
Matthew’s purpose to connect Jesus to some Old Testament leaders with similar stories (such as
Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, and Elijah).
For example, the birth story parallels that of Moses. In both, a king hears of the eventual
birth of a child destined to bring freedom to people (Exodus 12:29, and Matthew 2:16-18), sends
out messengers to find dthe child, and orders a massacre of children in an attempt to kill the child.
The Egyptian Pharoah (either Sethos I or more probably his son Ramesses II) provides a parallel to
King Herod; both seek out a child. Since Moses became an integral part of Judaic tradition by
leading his people out of bondage, so too is Jesus presented to likewise act as God’s instrument to
save them again. Jesus’ acts in the temple parallel another Old Testament figure, Samuel, whose
parents were blessed (I Sam 2:20) just as Jesus’ parents were (Luke 2:34).
Brown deals with the chronology in Matthew. Examining the genealogy given in the opening
of that gospel (Matthew 1:1-17), he finds 3 kings missing so that 3 sets of 14 generations may be
maintained. Rather than reading “Joram was the father of Ahaziah, Ahaziah was the father of
Jehoash, Jehoash the father of Amaziah, Amaziah the father of Uzziah (as it should, to agree with the
books of Chronicles), it omits Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah entirely. These omitted kings were
descendants of King Ahab of Israel (I Kings 21:21), since Joram is Ahab’s son-in-law. Ahab is a king
whom God curses. Omitting them underscores Luke’s presentation of Jesus as a true son of God.
Uzziah was the regnal name of King Azariah, which was bound to create confusion to textual
copiers. Brown explains fully the intricate confusions such as these and their ramifications on the
questions of historicity of the family lines. In the first and third sections of the lineage, only 13
generations are found. Matthew is not writing history here. He records facts as it suits his
theological purposes. In forcing 3 groups of 14, Matthew resorts to a subtle association back to
David. Ancient Hebrew orthography counted the numeric value of the name of David to be 14
(Brown p 80). This, Brown explains, leads to Matthew’s purpose, to show Jesus to the Jews as the
long expected Davidic Messiah.
Such a designation did not fit Luke’s purposes, for Luke was by contrast a Greek writer.
Luke saw Jesus as a Messiah for the Gentiles and Greeks to whom salvation did not depend on being
Jewish. After the annunciation message from Gabriel on Davidic descent, Luke shifts his focus. After
Jesus is baptisted in the river Jordan, a voice from heaven proclaims that God’s beloved son is the
man standing before his cousin John the Baptist. At this point, Luke leads into his lineage and
concentrates on the child as a son of God. His audience consists of believers of less Judaic
background than that of Matthew; therefore, Luke writes of a more universal Savior. The child is
Son of God, since Luke traces the lineage back to Adam (Luke 3:25). No royal descent is favored,
since it is not via David’s son Solomon through which Luke traces Jesus’ descent. Luke’s purpose
here, as Brown explains, underlies the differences in lineage of Luke and Matthew. Luke provides a
point of continuity for Paul, who compares Jesus not only to Abraham (Gal 3:16), but also to Adam
(Romans 5:12-21). This underscores Luke’s purpose: that Jesus was descended from both God and
Man.
In an appendix, Brown deals with the genealogical discrepancy of the father of Joseph.
Matthew lists the man as Jacob and Luke lists him as Eli (Brown p 503-4). By consulting
Deuteronomy 25:5, he argues the case of levirate marriage. This concept emerged under the Torah
as a means of preserving a family. One man dying would leave his wife to his brother, so the widow
would marry her brother-in-law and continue the line of the elder brother. This problem, while met
in the main text of the book, receives full treatment in the first appendix so the flow of Brown’s
argument may not be interrupted by this discussion.
Brown also deals with the problem of Luke’s chronology. Luke records that Augustus
decreed a census while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1). Quirinius
began his duties there in A. D. 6. However, Herod, in whose reign Jesus was born by the account of
Luke 1 (since his mother was pregnant then), died in 4 B.C. This glaring problem likewise receives
full consideration in an appendix devoted to it alone. One solution argues that the Herod mentioned
was not Herod the Great, but his son Archelaus – ethnarch of Judea from 4 B.C. to A. D. 6 (Brown
548). After examining the evidence and various hypotheses (including one idea for a two-step
census completed under Quirinius), Brown sides against reconciling the first two chapters of Luke.
Brown concludes that Luke has authored for us a composite story setting the birth in combined
political decline of the accession of Archelaus with the governorship of Quirinius ten years later. For
both events, the Jews revolted and would look for a Messiah.
Brown employs several ancient and modern historians. For the ancient authors, Brown
refers to Tacitus, Josephus, Philo Judaeus, and Julius Africanus. The Greek Septuagint, as well as the
Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Bezae, are among his sources for Scriptural texts.
He examines a variety of modern authors as well, offering their ideas on each side of the matter
before reaching a conclusion.
December 29, 2022
“[T]he infancy narratives are worthy vehicles of the Gospel message; indeed, each is the essential Gospel story in miniature.” (7)
An impressive and thorough work on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. Brown leaves no stone unturned in his analysis. Though Brown leans too heavily on source criticism and his (or anyone’s) ability to parse out which verses or passages arose from which pre-Matthean/Lukan source, his primary focus still remains on the final form of the infancy narratives as we now have them.
This was my first time reading this tome cover to cover, and it was well worth the time and the effort. I will likely return to this book many times throughout my life.
An impressive and thorough work on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. Brown leaves no stone unturned in his analysis. Though Brown leans too heavily on source criticism and his (or anyone’s) ability to parse out which verses or passages arose from which pre-Matthean/Lukan source, his primary focus still remains on the final form of the infancy narratives as we now have them.
This was my first time reading this tome cover to cover, and it was well worth the time and the effort. I will likely return to this book many times throughout my life.
September 13, 2025
It is a ground breaking work and I appreciated it for what it is. Exploration of the historicity of the Birth of Christ is an important exploration. Much of the book is an exposition on the passage and exploration of different interpretations, but I appreciated those moments that it discussed sources and background. Although, the miraculous birth of Jesus of Nazareth and the virgin birth are fictions and theological constructions by the writers, Brown, at the end of the day, cannot escape that he is a Catholic who must maintain the plausibility of the core event. Excellent background for anyone doing research in Christianity and historicity.
May 3, 2020
A classic, but rather dated scholarly work in light of new discovery and thinking.
November 4, 2022
For the average person, this commentary is obtuse.
November 26, 2016
Raymond Brown's book is still the standard work in its field, even a few decades after it was first published. It's a great resource for information on Jesus' childhood. Unfortunately, though, Brown often draws false conclusions from the abundant information he's gathered. He radically underestimates the level of agreement between Matthew and Luke. He doesn't address some relevant Biblical passages that are supportive of a more conservative view of Jesus' childhood (e.g., John 1:15, 8:12, 1 Timothy 5:18). He ignores or underestimates much of the patristic evidence supporting more conservative conclusions. He relies too much on highly speculative reconstructions of alleged pre-Matthean and pre-Lukan sources. He sees too many parallels to the Old Testament, overestimates the parallels that do exist, and ignores or underestimates instances when Matthew and Luke refrain from paralleling the Old Testament when it would have been to their advantage to have drawn a parallel. A lot of evidence supporting the historicity of the Biblical accounts is ignored or underestimated by Brown.
For those who are interested in more about the problems with Brown's work, see my material on the subject at my blog (Triablogue, especially http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/1...). For a couple of recent examples of scholars arguing against Brown's conclusions, search online for Stephen Carlson's article, "The Accommodations Of Joseph And Mary In Bethlehem: Kataluma In Luke 2:7" (New Testament Studies 56 [2010], 326-342) and Richard Bauckham's October 2013 lecture, "Luke’s Infancy Narrative as Oral History in Scriptural Form".
For those who are interested in more about the problems with Brown's work, see my material on the subject at my blog (Triablogue, especially http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/1...). For a couple of recent examples of scholars arguing against Brown's conclusions, search online for Stephen Carlson's article, "The Accommodations Of Joseph And Mary In Bethlehem: Kataluma In Luke 2:7" (New Testament Studies 56 [2010], 326-342) and Richard Bauckham's October 2013 lecture, "Luke’s Infancy Narrative as Oral History in Scriptural Form".
January 25, 2016
Brown's commentary on the Matthean and Lucan infancy narratives is impressive. Over 700 pages on 4 biblical chapters, the most thorough treatment available, and characterized by insightful and balanced exegesis. Even the appendixes are worth careful reading.
My major criticism of the commentary is Brown's dependence on his reconstructions of "layers" that he discerns within the text, of "pre" Matthean and Lucan material. This sort of form and structural criticism is normal in critical scholarship, so such comments are expected, but I find such analysis far too speculative to be too heavily relied upon. I found Brown to revisit and rely on such analysis too often, and too heavily, in his interpretations of the texts, and this leaves him far too open to criticism on many of his conclusions.
On the whole, this commentary is essential for anyone looking to study the infancy narratives of Jesus with any detail. As Brown himself notes, his conclusions are likely to be unsatisfying to both liberal and conservative interpreters, but his objectivity can hardly be questioned, and he does a wonderful job of hitting all the major discussion points.
My major criticism of the commentary is Brown's dependence on his reconstructions of "layers" that he discerns within the text, of "pre" Matthean and Lucan material. This sort of form and structural criticism is normal in critical scholarship, so such comments are expected, but I find such analysis far too speculative to be too heavily relied upon. I found Brown to revisit and rely on such analysis too often, and too heavily, in his interpretations of the texts, and this leaves him far too open to criticism on many of his conclusions.
On the whole, this commentary is essential for anyone looking to study the infancy narratives of Jesus with any detail. As Brown himself notes, his conclusions are likely to be unsatisfying to both liberal and conservative interpreters, but his objectivity can hardly be questioned, and he does a wonderful job of hitting all the major discussion points.
January 5, 2014
This time through, I only read the introductory material and the Matthew section, since it was liturgical year A. Again, the book is a great summary of the scholarship of Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. His conclusions are rather conservative, but never unreasonable, and he is very clear what are his conclusions and why, as well as listing other options.
May 22, 2012
Brown's best quality is his clarity. His expertise affords him the ability to elucidate the issues surrounding the infancy narratives SO accessibly. Great writing, great thinking, and overall a thorough commentary for Matt 1-2 and Luke 1-2.
November 28, 2012
A fantastic resource for scholars, preachers, students. One of the greatest scholars of modern times writing in an accessible way. Read this book while in seminary and it was a great joy to read it again in preparation for Advent.
December 26, 2025
R3-L3
Rp 450 rb
Rp 450 rb
December 21, 2016
Judicious, well-informed analysis of the two birth narratives.
Want to read
December 18, 2022Recommended by a Lutheran as good exegesis.
November 19, 2016
i can not read it
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews