As increasingly the norm, I am much indebted to the A Perennial Digression substack for the substance of the arguments offered here.
First, let's first look at sources: For the life of Jesus, scholars suggest Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Q (and Josephus, because he mentions him).
Now, if we at least try and order that list chronologically, we get something like proto-John, Paul, Mark, Josephus, Q, Matthew, Luke, and final-John. I have put proto-John first because the author claims to be an eye-witness. That may well be true, but the final recension of John, the version we hold, was most likely completed after Mark, Matthew and Luke had been completed and were in circulation. There might well have been proto-Synoptics, as well.
Chronologically, then, John introduces Jesus as an adult. Paul only offers Jesus "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Mark, like John, starts his story at Jesus' baptism. Q says nothing. So that leaves us with two: Matthew and Luke.
If we try and reconstruct a birth narrative, the first hurdle is that Matthew and Luke tell different stories. In Matthew, Jesus is conceived and born of a virgin in fulfillment of the oracle of LXX Isaiah 7:14. In Luke, the virginal conception and birth is revealed by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary (Luke 1:26-38) and not to Joseph. Mary questions how, but assents to the mystery. Mt and Lk both agree that Jesus' virgin birth is connected to his Davidide ancestry: Matthew in his genealogy (1:1-17), and Luke has Joseph "from the house of David" (1:27) and Gabriel clarifies that the son will inherit "the throne of his father David" (1:32).
Both Gospels have Jesus born in Bethlehem, but disagree in the details.
In Matthew, the Holy Family already live there, only relocating to Nazareth after their return from the Flight to Egypt. In Luke, they go from Nazareth to Bethlehem and back again. It's a convoluted story, and it's chronologically incorrect. Herod is alive, yet Quirinius is governor of Syria. Herod died in 4BCE, but Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6CE, 10 years later.
Luke implies Emperor Augustus called for a universal census, for which we have no record (and we absolutely would have, had it happened). Furthermore, no ancient census is recorded as requiring workers to go to their places of birth – what would be the point? A census is to determine who lives where, not where people lived n-number of years ago. (And the economic upheaval of a workforce travelling to and fro for days or even weeks across the empire would have been considerable.)
There was a census in 6CE in Syria and Judea, and Luke would remember that. It triggered the rebellion of Judas of Galilee, Judas of Galilee, or Judas of Gamala, who led resistance to the census imposed for tax purposes by Quirinius. If Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor, and was around 30 when John baptized him (Luke 3:23), this means Jesus started his ministry around 36CE. Pilate was Prefect from 26 to 36CE, when he was recalled by Tiberius. Even if Jesus' ministry is only one year, as the Synoptics suggest, the timing is unlikely.
Matthew's story is the more likely, saying Jesus was born when Herod the Great was king, probably sometime in the last two years of his life, 6-4BCE. That would put Jesus around 30 at the start of Pilate's prefecture. Luke, confusingly, attests to this by saying that Jesus' birth happened when Herod was king (Luke 1:5). This can only be Herod the Great. (Another problem for another day is whether John the Baptist outlived Jesus – because in some gospel reconstructions, he might well have.)
Multiple attestation to the birth then runs into trouble when only two of the six attest to it, and furthermore because the attestation might be for ideological reasons, rather than historical.
Jesus of Nazareth does not quite fit the scriptural paradigm for a Davidic messiah. That the messiah should be able to trace a direct line to David’s city, Bethlehem, is stated in Micah 5:2. Matthew (2:5-6) and John (7:40-44) both concur that this was an expectation among Jesus' contemporaries, and John in particular finds it an objection to Jesus among Jesus' interlocutors (7:40-53) – here the argument blows up that Jesus can't be a prophet because he's not from Bethlehem, but Galilee.
Given that John was composed last, either John knows the Bethlehem story, and for some inexplicable reason chooses not to refute the accusation that Nazareth does not qualify Jesus as either a Davidide or a prophet, or he doesn't know it, but includes the criticism because that was the kind of thing Jesus was up against, or, he does know it, but sees it as a narrative device.
John's Jesus says "You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world" (8:23) – that overrides everything.
(to be continued)
First, let's first look at sources: For the life of Jesus, scholars suggest Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Q (and Josephus, because he mentions him).
Now, if we at least try and order that list chronologically, we get something like proto-John, Paul, Mark, Josephus, Q, Matthew, Luke, and final-John. I have put proto-John first because the author claims to be an eye-witness. That may well be true, but the final recension of John, the version we hold, was most likely completed after Mark, Matthew and Luke had been completed and were in circulation. There might well have been proto-Synoptics, as well.
Chronologically, then, John introduces Jesus as an adult. Paul only offers Jesus "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Mark, like John, starts his story at Jesus' baptism. Q says nothing. So that leaves us with two: Matthew and Luke.
If we try and reconstruct a birth narrative, the first hurdle is that Matthew and Luke tell different stories. In Matthew, Jesus is conceived and born of a virgin in fulfillment of the oracle of LXX Isaiah 7:14. In Luke, the virginal conception and birth is revealed by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary (Luke 1:26-38) and not to Joseph. Mary questions how, but assents to the mystery. Mt and Lk both agree that Jesus' virgin birth is connected to his Davidide ancestry: Matthew in his genealogy (1:1-17), and Luke has Joseph "from the house of David" (1:27) and Gabriel clarifies that the son will inherit "the throne of his father David" (1:32).
Both Gospels have Jesus born in Bethlehem, but disagree in the details.
In Matthew, the Holy Family already live there, only relocating to Nazareth after their return from the Flight to Egypt. In Luke, they go from Nazareth to Bethlehem and back again. It's a convoluted story, and it's chronologically incorrect. Herod is alive, yet Quirinius is governor of Syria. Herod died in 4BCE, but Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6CE, 10 years later.
Luke implies Emperor Augustus called for a universal census, for which we have no record (and we absolutely would have, had it happened). Furthermore, no ancient census is recorded as requiring workers to go to their places of birth – what would be the point? A census is to determine who lives where, not where people lived n-number of years ago. (And the economic upheaval of a workforce travelling to and fro for days or even weeks across the empire would have been considerable.)
There was a census in 6CE in Syria and Judea, and Luke would remember that. It triggered the rebellion of Judas of Galilee, Judas of Galilee, or Judas of Gamala, who led resistance to the census imposed for tax purposes by Quirinius. If Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor, and was around 30 when John baptized him (Luke 3:23), this means Jesus started his ministry around 36CE. Pilate was Prefect from 26 to 36CE, when he was recalled by Tiberius. Even if Jesus' ministry is only one year, as the Synoptics suggest, the timing is unlikely.
Matthew's story is the more likely, saying Jesus was born when Herod the Great was king, probably sometime in the last two years of his life, 6-4BCE. That would put Jesus around 30 at the start of Pilate's prefecture. Luke, confusingly, attests to this by saying that Jesus' birth happened when Herod was king (Luke 1:5). This can only be Herod the Great. (Another problem for another day is whether John the Baptist outlived Jesus – because in some gospel reconstructions, he might well have.)
Multiple attestation to the birth then runs into trouble when only two of the six attest to it, and furthermore because the attestation might be for ideological reasons, rather than historical.
Jesus of Nazareth does not quite fit the scriptural paradigm for a Davidic messiah. That the messiah should be able to trace a direct line to David’s city, Bethlehem, is stated in Micah 5:2. Matthew (2:5-6) and John (7:40-44) both concur that this was an expectation among Jesus' contemporaries, and John in particular finds it an objection to Jesus among Jesus' interlocutors (7:40-53) – here the argument blows up that Jesus can't be a prophet because he's not from Bethlehem, but Galilee.
Given that John was composed last, either John knows the Bethlehem story, and for some inexplicable reason chooses not to refute the accusation that Nazareth does not qualify Jesus as either a Davidide or a prophet, or he doesn't know it, but includes the criticism because that was the kind of thing Jesus was up against, or, he does know it, but sees it as a narrative device.
John's Jesus says "You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world" (8:23) – that overrides everything.
(to be continued)
