Samson the Nazorean?

One aspect of Matthew’s style is to quote a passage from the OT prefixed with words to the effect: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet who said...” Matthew does this more than any of the other evangelists, some 10 to 14 times (depending on what qualifies as a citation). In most cases, it breaks up the narrative flow and the passage reads better without the citation.

Almost certainly, these OT quotes were added by Matthew and were not part of the tradition he received. For example, Mark 1:14 records the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee after John the Baptist’s arrest. This verse is paralleled in Luke 4:14, also without a Scripture citation. But when Matthew records the same incident in his gospel at 4:12-16, he states this was done to fulfill what Isaiah prophesied in Is 8:23-9:1 (9:1-2 in some translations).

In a previous article, I covered Mt 1:22-23, the first of his 10-14 fulfillment citations. Mt 2 offers three or maybe four more prophetic citations. Let me briefly discuss each one.

1. From you will come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people (2:6)

This is an oddball passage. First, it does cite the OT but lacks the “all this took place to fulfill…” formula. This is one of those cases scholars are not sure should count as a prophetic fulfillment.

Second, the citation references two separate verses from the OT:

• “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel.” (Micah 5:1; 5:2 in some translations)
• “You shall be shepherd of my people Israel” (2 Samuel 5:2)

Matthew made some minor changes like replacing Ephrathah with “land of Judah” for the better understanding of his readers, but nothing substantial.

This passage is one piece of evidence that there was an expectation in the 1st century CE that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. John 7:41-42 provides independent evidence of the same expectation. Matthew and Luke wrote their infancy narratives in part to affirm that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem, although he was better-known as a resident of Nazareth. 

2. Out of Egypt I have called my son (2:15b)

An almost verbatim citation of Hosea 11:1. The only thing worth mentioning is that the “son” in the original is a reference to Israel and its exodus from Egypt. Matthew, like his contemporaries, was not overly concerned with interpreting a verse in its original context. 

3. Rachel crying for her children (2:18)

Again, we have a fairly accurate citation of Jeremiah 31:15. In the original context, Jeremiah is possibly referring to Judah’s defeat by the Babylonians; Ramah was a staging point for the deportations from Jerusalem (Jer 40:1). Also, in the original context, the figurative Rachel is being told to stop weeping because her children will return from the enemy’s land (vv. 16-17). There is no such hope in Matthew’s situation.

4. He will be called a Nazorean (2:23b)

The evangelists use the terms “Jesus the Nazarane” and “Jesus the Nazorean” interchangeably. Matthew, however, only uses the Nazorean form. And he only uses it here at the beginning of his gospel and again towards the end (26:71).

This is the oddest fulfillment citation yet because there is no clear OT verse that Matthew is citing. Did Matthew just make it up? The best guesses for his OT sources are:

• “He will be called holy.” (Isaiah 4:3)
• “I have been a Nazirite of God.” (Judges 16:17)

Now, if those two OT verses don’t seem anything at all like Matthew’s citation, you’re not alone. This will require a bit of explanation.

Nazirite comes from the Hebrew word nazir, meaning “set apart as sacred.” (It should definitely not be confused with the German Nazi Party!) The Nazirite vow is explained in Numbers 6:1-21 and involves abstaining from the products of grapes, cutting of the hair, and contact with the dead. The vow was usually taken for a short period of time, but there were some (like Samson and Samuel) who were life-long Nazirites. The quote above from Judges is Samson’s statement to Delilah as to why he does not cut his hair.

World’s worst haircut. Samson was a Nazirite and Matthew saw this as foretelling Jesus would be a Nazorean? Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr (inventor of spread-spectrum technologies) in Cecil B. DeMille’s Samson and Delilah.

When this verse was translated into Greek, some manuscripts took a literal approach and translated nazir as Naziraios, while other manuscripts freely translated it as hagios (“holy one”). Keeping in mind the interchangeability in the Greek versions of hagios/Naziraios, when Matthew looked at Is 4:3, he could read it as “He will be called a Naziraios.” This is very close to what Matthew wrote down: “He will be called a Nazoraios.” 

Essentially, Matthew is getting a two-fer as the word Nazoraios both describes Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and it also depicts him as the “Holy One of God.” Some explanation of Jesus coming from Nazareth was necessary because, unlike Bethlehem, Nazareth is never mentioned in the OT at all. If the prophets foresaw the virginal conception, birth in Bethlehem, the massacre of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt, then they must certainly have foretold that Jesus would come from Nazareth. The “Holy One of God” title is a very unusual one for Jesus, appearing only in Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; and John 6:69.

This convoluted way of interpreting Scripture was common in Matthew’s day. It was based on the idea that all of Scripture had God as the one author and spoke with one voice, although in many accents. As a scribe, Matthew would see himself as discerning a pattern in the Scriptures that pointed to God’s plan for the birth and ministry of his Son.

An Epiphany of Sorts

The word epiphany comes from the Greek word meaning “appearance” or “manifestation.” In the Church calendar, the feast of Epiphany is traditionally celebrated on January 6 in commemoration of the coming of the magi to the Christ Child and marks the end of the 12 days of Christmas. Called “Three Kings Day” in some countries, the festival celebrates the first manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles. In conversational usage, “epiphany” means a sudden flash of understanding or insight through a simple or commonplace experience.

Visit of the Astrologers

Mt 2:1-23 provides the story of the visit of the magi, the flight to Egypt and the massacre of the innocent. The evangelist jumps straight from Joseph naming Jesus after his birth in 1:25 to the magi arriving in Jerusalem in 2:1. The magi, or wise men, were most likely astrologers, not kings. Matthew doesn’t say how many there were or their point of origin other than that they were “from the east.” The popular idea that there were three wise men is based on the three gifts the magi brought: gold, frankincense and myrrh. Later traditions (from the 6th century CE) provide them with names such as Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthasar, different ethnicities and ages (old man with a white beard, young beardless man, and man with black skin).

The Adoration of the Magi, tapestry (designed by Edward Burne-Jones 1888, woven 1894)

Noting the rising of a particular star, the magi determined that it signified the birth of the “king of the Jews.” Thus, it was observations of the natural world that led the Gentile astrologers to the messiah. But, the natural world reveals only so much; the magi must inquire of King Herod the Great in Jerusalem as to the exact location of the child. God’s revelation in Scripture is needed for them to complete their journey.

Herod calls together his “chief priests and scribes” – the same antagonists that the adult Jesus will face in his ministry – and is told that Bethlehem is the birth place based on Micah 5:2. Although Herod and his scribes have the Scriptures, they do not believe and hence cannot use that information themselves. Herod learns the exact time of the star’s appearance – presumably the date of the child’s birth – from the magi and asks them to report back to him once they have found the newborn king.

The magi set out towards Bethlehem and the star led them to the exact location (2:9). Many have speculated if the “star” was a supernova, comet, or planetary conjunction. None of these could be used to pinpoint a particular house in Bethlehem. And it is a house in Bethlehem, according to v. 11. In Matthew’s telling, Mary and Joseph were residents of Bethlehem.

About those gifts...Matthew is not explicitly citing Isaiah, but may have him in mind: “all those from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense and proclaiming the salvation of the Lord” (Is 60:6, LXX). We’re all familiar with gold. Frankincense was usually burnt as incense in religious ceremonies. Myrrh, an aromatic spice, was used as incense, as perfume, and as a cosmetic. Mixed with wine, it was offered as a painkiller to Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) and, with aloes, was used to embalm Jesus (John 19:39). Certainly, they were gifts befitting a king.

Refugees in Egypt

After the magi failed to return to Herod, he ordered the death of all boys two years of age or younger in the vicinity of Bethlehem. If the population of Bethlehem was about 1000, the number would be less than 20 boys. There are no records of Herod ordering this, but he was notoriously paranoid and it sounds like something he could have done. Matthew tells us that Herod decided on two years based on the time of the star’s first appearance (v. 16). The clues in the story tell us that Jesus would have been one or two years old, not the newborn babe in the traditional nativity story.

Joseph was warned of the danger by an angel in a dream and told to take his family and flee to Egypt until further notice. Only after the death of Herod (in 4 BCE) does the angel re-appear to Joseph in a dream and instruct him to return to Israel “for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead” (v. 20). This is a clear echo of Exodus 4:19 when Moses is told the same thing while he is an exile in Midian.

Joseph planned to return to Bethlehem until he learned that Herod’s son Archelaus was ruling over Judea. An angel had to instruct Joseph in one more dream that he should go instead to Galilee, whereupon he made his home in Nazareth. Why didn’t the angel simply tell Joseph in one dream to go directly to Galilee from Egypt? The awkwardness probably stems from Matthew adding vv. 22-23 to material that he inherited. Matthew is taking pains to explain to his audience how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem – because that’s was Joseph’s home – yet was known to have come from Nazareth. (Luke uses the census to explain how Joseph and Mary, residents of Nazareth, found themselves in Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth.)

Mosaic Pattern

The imagery in Matthew’s narrative is reminiscent of stories surrounding Moses. It is not mentioned in the OT, but the Jewish historian Josephus, writing around the time of Matthew (80-90 CE), told the story of an Egyptian pharaoh who was informed by one of his fortune-tellers that a child born of the Israelites would be the downfall of the Egyptians. This caused the pharaoh to order the deaths of the male babies. But Moses’ father Amram was visited by God in a dream and told that his unborn child would be the one feared in the Egyptian prophecy. Later, as an adult, Moses fled to Midian to save his life, only returning to Egypt once he was told that those seeking his life were dead.

Much later still, when Moses was leading the Israelites to the promised land, Balak the king of Moab, called upon Balaam, a practitioner of the magical arts (the NT would call him a magus), to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). Instead of cursing the Israelites, Balaam blessed them, predicting that “a star shall rise out of Jacob and a scepter shall come forth from Israel” (Num 24:17). This was understood as referring to the Davidic monarchy, but later was re-interpreted as a prophecy of a messianic king in the line of David.

Gospel in Miniature

Having reviewed Mt 1-2, we can see why the infancy narrative is called “a gospel in miniature.” In these two short chapters, Matthew explains various christological titles ascribed to Jesus: Christ, Son of Abraham, Son of David, Son of God, and King of the Jews. He also shows the reactions to this revelation, both good (the magi) and bad (Herod). Despite having the guide of the Scriptures, Herod (representing the Jews) rejects the messiah and tries to kill him, but he is accepted and paid homage by the magi (representing the Gentiles). This reflects the situation in Matthew’s community, which is predominantly Gentile. Although his opponents tried to kill Jesus, God protected him and later brought him back.

Studying the infancy narrative here and in Luke more than 30 years ago, was sort of an epiphany for me. I began to see that the imagery and symbolism had layers of meaning far deeper than I could have imagined. They were no longer background stories for nativity plays and Christmas specials. Understanding their true purpose helped me put the adult Christ back into Christmas.

Dreams of a Father

It is no secret that in Matthew’s infancy story Joseph plays the starring role. Mary is barely mentioned. Therefore, it is not surprising that Matthew has an angel announce the birth of Jesus to Joseph, instead of Mary.

The genealogy in 1:1-17 sets the stage. Throughout, the pattern is “A was the father of B, B was the father of C.” But at the very end, v. 16 reads: “Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born”. Someone reading Matthew for the first time would have to wonder why he didn’t just write, “Joseph was the father of Jesus.” Also, the mention of Mary would call to mind the mention of the four other women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba) in the genealogy. As we have seen in my previous article, in each case where the mother was mentioned there was something irregular or scandalous about those unions. The presence of these four women in the genealogy prepares the reader to expect something unusual about Jesus’ birth when Mary's name appears.

Marriage Customs

V. 18 lays out the crux of the problem: “His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, but before they began to live together she was found to be with child – through the Holy Spirit.”

To understand the irregularity of Jesus’ birth, it is important to understand the marriage customs at the time. Marriage occurred in two steps. First, there was the formal exchange of consent before witnesses. This was followed some time later by the bride moving into the groom’s home. This gave the husband time to prepare a dwelling for his bride. 

Translations of v. 18 may say “betrothed” or “engaged” but neither Greek nor English has the adequate terminology to explain that according to Jewish law, Mary and Joseph were married from the time that they exchanged consent, even though they had not yet moved to the second stage of living together.

The explanation that Mary was pregnant “through the Holy Spirit” is for the benefit of the reader. In the story, Joseph was not privy to that information. As far as he knew, his wife was pregnant by another man. Matthew informs us that Joseph was both “an upright man” and “was unwilling to shame her.” In other words, he did not want to publicly accuse her of adultery, but neither could he accept the child as his own and sweep Mary’s supposed transgression under the rug.

Joseph the Dreamer

So Joseph’s compromise was to divorce her “quietly,” whatever that meant. Neither the divorce nor Mary’s pregnancy could be kept secret. But before he could proceed with his plan, he was visited in a dream by an angel who told him that the child was begotten through the Holy Spirit. Joseph was instructed to take Mary into his home and name the child Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins.”

The story has echoes in the OT. The genealogy already told us that Jacob was the father Joseph, just as the patriarch Jacob in Genesis was the father of a different Joseph. In Genesis, Joseph had a series of dreams foretelling the future which he was able to use to his advantage to save his people in a time of famine. So, too, this Joseph will have dreams that occur at crucial moments.

Joseph’s Dream by Gaetano Gandolfi (1734-1802)

By naming the child, Joseph will become the legal father of Jesus. It was obvious who the mother of a child was, but to establish paternity, Jewish law required a man to give testimony since most men would be reluctant to claim to be the father of a child that was not theirs. Thus Matthew explains how Jesus became son of David (through Joseph’s acknowledgement of paternity) and son of God (through the Holy Spirit).

The name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew Yeshua, which is a shortened version of Yehoshua (Joshua), which means “YHWH helps.” Yeshua is very similar to the Hebrew word for “salvation.”

Prophetic Fulfillment

Joseph did exactly as instructed and Matthew gives us the first of several formulaic citations of prophetic fulfillment. All that he had just described had been done to fulfill what a prophet – in this case, Isaiah – said long ago:

“Behold, the virgin [parthenos] shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.” (Mt 1:23)

Matthew appears to be quoting Isaiah 7:14, but it is not an exact quotation from the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text:

“Behold, the young woman [‘almah] is with child and shall bear a son, and she shall name him Emmanuel.” (Is 7:14, MT)

In language, the quotation is closer to the Greek translation of the OT:

“Behold, the virgin [parthenos] shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel.” (LXX)

The main differences are that Matthew, following the Septuagint (LXX), uses the word “virgin” and says “they shall name him” instead of “she” (MT) or “you” (LXX).

In the context of Isaiah, the prophet is giving a sign of reassurance to King Ahaz of Judah who feared a coalition of Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel. Isaiah announces the birth of a child – presumably a child of the king’s – who will not have reached the age of reason before both attacking kingdoms will be in ruins. The name Emmanuel means “with us is God.”

This is not a prophetic prediction of the messiah, nor of a virgin birth. The Hebrew ‘almah means “young woman” and the Greek translates it as parthenos. While parthenos does have a technical meaning of virgin, it is also a term used to describe a young woman. Matthew definitely understands it in its technical sense because he clarifies in v. 25 that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary after taking her into his home.

Matthew stresses that “they” shall refer to Jesus as Emmanuel, “God with us.” The “they” to which he refers is “his people” whom he will save from their sins. Moses was also a savior of his people, the Hebrews. But for Jesus, “his people” will be all the nations of the world. But whereas Moses saved his people from bondage to Pharaoh, Jesus will save his people from bondage to sin.

This episode foreshadows the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel which closes with the words of the post-resurrection Jesus to his disciples, “I am with you always to the end of the age” (28:20). Thus the enduring presence of God’s spirit in Jesus which was made known by an angel to Joseph, would be spread to all the nations until the end of time through the preaching of the apostles.

The Crooked Line of Descent

Matthew’s gospel is the first book of the NT and the very beginning of Matthew (1:1-17) is one of those boring genealogies that we’re used to seeing in Genesis. Just as the use of genealogies in Genesis served the purpose of linking Abraham to Noah and to Adam, Matthew uses a genealogy to link Jesus to Abraham. In v. 17 Matthew explicitly divides his list into three parts:

1. From Abraham to David
2. From David to the Babylonian Exile
3. From the Babylonian Exile to Jesus

The words Matthew uses (“book of the genesis”) to introduce his genealogy in v. 1 hearken back to the toledot formula we saw at the beginning of each of the genealogies in Genesis. He also specifies that Jesus Christ (= messiah) is both son of David and son of Abraham. By tracing Jesus’ descent through the Davidic line of kings, Matthew emphasizes the sonship of David, an important theme in the first chapter of his infancy narrative. By tracing descent back to Abraham, Matthew is also stressing his second theme that Jesus is the realization of God’s promise to Abraham by whom “all nations of the earth shall bless themselves” (Gen 22:18). This promise will be fulfilled when the magi come to pay homage to the Christ child.

Artificial Tree

Matthew’s construction is highly artificial. Luke (3:23-38) also provides a genealogy of Jesus. Unlike Matthew who works forward from Abraham, Luke works backwards from Jesus all the way to “Adam, son of God.” A quick comparison of the two genealogies show them diverging after David, with Matthew tracing Jesus’ descent through Solomon and Luke through a non-regal son, Nathan. This poses a problem for biblical inerrantists. A popular explanation is that Matthew cites Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph while Luke documents Mary’s genealogy. It is true that Matthew is focused on Joseph while Luke focuses on Mary, but Luke writes “Joseph, the son of Heli” and Matthew says “Jacob the father of Joseph.” They are both clearly describing Joseph's line of descent.

Matthew says that there were fourteen generations in each of his three parts, but that’s only true of the second section. In both the first and last parts there are fourteen names, but only thirteen generations. Oops! And to get fourteen generations in the second part, he had to skip over several kings. According to the OT Joram was not the father of Uzziah; there were three additional generations between these two kings. More problems for inerrantists.

Jesus' family tree. The genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew lists an assortment of known and unknown names and links Jesus to Abraham and the rest of the OT.

From Abraham to David

The first section has some familiar names, beginning with the patriarchs of Genesis: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. Anyone familiar with the OT stories would know of the covenant made with Abraham and his act of faith in being willing to sacrifice Isaac. But the patriarchs also behaved badly at times. Jacob cheated his elder brother out of his birthright and Judah and his brothers sold Joseph into slavery. Perhaps Matthew wants to remind the reader of that by specifically mentioning “Judah and his brothers.” Matthew also said that Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. It’s very odd in a genealogy to mention the mother. We’ll return to this later.

From David to the Babylonian Exile

Starting at the high point in Israel’s history with David and Solomon, we pass through a series of kings that ends with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the end of the monarchy. David gets mentioned more than anyone else in the OT. Yet he sinned by taking Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and then arranging for Uriah’s death when Bathsheba became pregnant. Matthew alludes to that incident in citing David as “the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah.” With the exception of Hezekiah and Josiah, all the other kings in the list were corrupt, incompetent or idolators. Although they were God’s representatives on earth, the kings listed in the second section were hardly exemplars of faith.

From the Babylonian Exile to Jesus

The final section covers the period from the exile in Babylon to the return and occupation by first the Greeks and then the Romans. It lists mostly unknown names. We don’t know where Matthew got these names and they don’t match the few post-exilic names that are documented in 1 Chronicles 3:19-24. Just as the line of Jesus’ descent goes through rich and powerful kings, it also wends its way through poor and powerless unknowns. If the names and stories we know in the other section are any judge, then the final section has its mix of saints and sinners – mostly sinners – as well.

What about the Women?

Scattered through Matthew’s genealogy are a few names of the mothers who made their contribution to the line of descent. From Genesis, we know of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel, but those are not names Matthew cites. Instead, he gives us Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah” (Bathsheba). Why mention these women and not the others?

The one thing these women seem to have in common is that there was something irregular or scandalous about them. For example, Tamar’s husbands died before she had a child. As father-in-law, it was Judah’s duty to give her children. When he shirked his duty, Tamar took matters into her own hands and disguised herself as a prostitute. Rahab actually was a prostitute who aided the spies sent into Jericho. Ruth was a Moabite who literally threw herself at the feet of Boaz to get him to marry her. Bathsheba’s story has already been mentioned. Matthew is using these case studies in scandalous relationships to prepare us for the similarly irregular nature of the birth of Jesus.

The Big Picture

The big picture Matthew is drawing indicates that God has a plan, but that plan does not proceed apace without some twists and turns. God has to work with fallible human beings. We are not simply subject to fate, but retain our free will. Similarly, God is free to choose whom he will. It is not always the oldest son or the favored son who appears in the line of succession. Sometimes, the actions of women carry great import in moving the plan forward. 

The genealogy is Matthew’s way of saying that God writes straight with crooked lines, acting through a collection of saints and sinners, the powerful and the powerless to bring about the fulfillment of his promise to Abraham in Jesus Christ.

The Apostles Go to the Movies

Before starting a discussion on the infancy narratives, how about some “gospel truths” for background?

1. Mark is the oldest gospel (written around 66-70 CE). Mark begins his gospel with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Mark never mentions the name of Jesus’ legal father, Joseph.
2. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a basis for their own gospels (80-90 CE), but added additional material not found in Mark. Some of the supplementary material in Matthew has parallels with additions in Luke, but some non-Marcan material is only found in Matthew or only found in Luke.
3. Because so much of the material in Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar, they are called the synoptic gospels.
4. John’s gospel (90-100 CE) is very different and not based on Mark. Outside of the passion narrative, there are very few points of contact with the synoptic gospels. After a brief prologue on how the divine Word existed before creation and became flesh, John’s gospel opens with Jesus’ baptism. 
5. The infancy narrative in Matthew appears in the first two chapters and contains material that is exclusive to Matthew.
6. The infancy narrative in Luke appears in the first two chapters and contains material that is exclusive to Luke.

This brief survey highlights the peculiar nature of the infancy narratives. They seem to be prefixed to the gospels of Matthew and Luke like the prologue of a novel. The prologue sets the stage for what is to come, but you could skip it and not have missed anything crucial to the plot. There are no references in the rest of Matthew and Luke to anything that occurs in the infancy narratives.

Unlike the narratives and sayings from the public ministry which have the authority of the disciples standing behind it, there were few witnesses to the events being described in the infancy narratives. Theoretically, Matthew or Luke could have spoken to people who were alive during the time of Jesus’ ministry, but it is highly unlikely that any family members privy to the events of Jesus’ birth would have still been alive when Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels. And, if so, why are the stories so different?

While the two infancy narratives are completely distinct, there are a few points of agreement between them that may indicate a core of common tradition:

• Mary conceives after she has been betrothed to Joseph but before they live together.
• The conception of the child is through the Holy Spirit.
• Joseph is of Davidic descent.
• An angel announces the birth of the child, that he is to be named Jesus, and that he is to be Savior.
• The birth takes place after the parents have come to live together.
• The birth takes place in Bethlehem but the child is reared in Nazareth.
• The birth occurs during the reign of Herod the Great.

There are other infancy narratives in works that never became accepted as part of the NT (that is, non-canonical gospels), but these date from a later period (2nd century CE) than the four canonical gospels and seem to have been influenced by them, so they do not provide us with any independent information. Our only source of knowledge of the infancy of Jesus (such as it is) are in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke.

So why do Matthew and Luke each provide an infancy narrative while Mark and John are unconcerned about the early life of Jesus? Let’s look back at the “gospel truths” above. The one main point of contact among all four canonical gospels is the passion narrative (#4). This suggests that the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection was the most primitive core of early Christian preaching. 

Stories and sayings from Jesus’ public ministry became attached to the passion narratives. Mark was the first to do this (#1 above) and there may have been a collection of sayings from which Matthew and Luke both drew (#2). For Mark, the baptism of Jesus is when God reveals who Jesus is and marks the start of his ministry. This is a critical moment in all four canonical gospels. 

But for Matthew and Luke it wasn’t enough. Jesus couldn’t have become God’s son only at his baptism. By prefixing the infancy narratives to their gospels, Matthew and Luke showed that Jesus was the Son of God from his conception and birth. The evangelists are not merely relating biographical information; they are making a proclamation of the good news of salvation.

In Talladega Nights, Ricky Bobby (played by Will Ferrell) liked the Christmas Jesus best: “When you say grace, you can say it to grown-up Jesus, or teenage Jesus, or bearded Jesus, or whatever you want.”

It’s like one of those movies with a big twist (for example, The Sixth Sense, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects) that cause you to re-evaluate everything you thought was going on in the movie. The director provides you with a series of brief flashbacks so you can see how previous scenes now need to be understood.

For the early disciples of Jesus, the resurrection event was that twist. They thought Jesus was going to bring about his new kingdom, only to have their hopes dashed to pieces by his crucifixion. But the resurrection appearances caused them to re-evaluate the events around Jesus’ death. That, in turn, caused them to interpret the sayings and works of his ministry in a new light. Eventually, this train of thought led to the angel’s proclamation of Jesus as savior in the infancy narratives. 

The understanding of who Jesus was worked its way backwards from his resurrection to his baptism by John to his conception and birth. The adult Christ is very much a part of the infancy narrative.

Or, as Ricky Bobby in Talladega Nights would say, “Dear eight-pound, six-ounce newborn infant Jesus, don’t even know a word yet, just a little infant and so cuddly, but still omnipotent.”

Getting into the Christmas Spirit

Now that I have concluded my meditations on the primeval history (Genesis 1-11), maybe it would be a good time to start getting ready for Christmas. Over the next several weeks, I plan to comment on the infancy narratives in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke. There are many topics that could be discussed, for example:

• the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew
• the annunciations to Joseph, Zechariah, and Mary
• the Benedictus and the Magnificat
• the Magi and the Star
• the manger and the shepherds
• finding Jesus in the Temple

In addition, I'll probably also have at least one (or two) general articles discussing the purpose of the infancy narratives ("gospels in miniature"), the differences between them, or how the two distinct narratives have been harmonized in the typical nativity story.

In a way, the next couple of months will be for me a return to where my study of the Bible first started. Back in 1977, Catholic scripture scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) published The Birth of the Messiah, his 600-page study of the infancy narratives. I read a review of it in Newsweek magazine and recall being a little shocked and somewhat intrigued that one of Fr. Brown's claims was that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. A few years later, I bought a copy of the paperback version of the book, but it remained on my shelf unread because, after all, it was 600 pages long.

Back to where it all began. This is the cover of the trade paperback I read around Christmas 1983 that started me down the path of my self-directed study of the Bible.

In 1983, I took a class on New Testament literature and was exposed to modern biblical scholarship for the first time. That class gave me the foundations of how to approach the NT and I finally felt like I could read Brown's magisterial work with understanding. It turned out to be a good choice for me to start with because The Birth of the Messiah was ground-breaking and vastly influential. No one could write on the topic of the infancy narratives without addressing what Brown had to say on the subject, whether the writer was in agreement with him or not. And write they did, because Brown's book kicked off something of a resurgence of interest in the infancy narratives with some 500 books and articles written on the subject in the 15 years since its publication. When Brown released an updated volume of The Birth of the Messiah in 1993, he added a supplement of 150 more pages addressing the literature that had come out since the first edition.

Getting back to my story, as I read Brown's book, I found something of a kindred spirit. Brown's approach is to lay out the different theories and supporting evidence that have been proposed to explain some curiosity in a scripture passage before finally stating which side he believes and why. I appreciated his balanced approach and found myself in agreement with his conclusions 99% of the time. Simply put, his mind seemed to work the same as mine. This led me to seek out and read his other books. Years later (in 1991), I was finally able to take a week-long class with Fr. Brown and meet him in person.

But I digress. Not everyone has the time or inclination to read 750 pages on the infancy narratives. For those people, Fr. Brown has digested the main insights in two very short books (71 and 50 pages): A Coming Christ in Advent and An Adult Christ at Christmas. If you want to get some background on what I plan to write about over the next several weeks, read these two books.

After concluding my articles on the infancy narratives sometime around the start of the New Year, I'm not sure what topics I will be writing next. One obvious choice is to return to Genesis and pick up where I left off with the Abraham stories. A less obvious choice would be to work my way through the Gospel of Luke since in 2016 the Sunday gospel readings in the Lectionary will be coming from Luke. Or maybe I'll go crazy and start reading a 1200-page commentary on the Book of Revelation and discuss that. Who knows?

If you have a preference for what you'd like to read about in this blog after I conclude my review of the infancy narratives, please leave a comment below with your suggestions.