The Birth of Jesus Christ Historicity of the Birth Narrative

by David Hilborn, Theological Adviser, Evangelical Alliance UK Internal Evidence The nativity of Christ is recorded in two of the four Gospels: Matthew (1:18-2:23) and Luke (1:26-38; 2:1-20). The fact that it is not mentioned in every Gospel is hardly significant. After all, very few incidents in Jesus' life and ministry are common to all four evangelists: his feeding of the multitudes and his death, burial and resurrection are, but his boyhood, his baptism and temptation, his parables, transfiguration, last supper and ascension are not. Indeed, if every Gospel writer provided an identical record of the events in Jesus' life, there would be little sense in having four Gospels in the first place. The point is not how often the nativity is recorded, but how authentic the accounts we do have are, and how important they become for Christian belief. There is certainly variation between Matthew and Luke. Matthew has an angel appearing to Joseph in a dream, Magi following a star in the east to visit the child and Herod slaughtering the innocents, whereas Luke has none of these details. Luke has the angel Gabriel announcing the birth to Mary, a census ordered by Caesar Augustus, Quirinius as governor of Syria, Jesus being born in manger 'because there was no place in the inn', and an angel appearing to shepherds with the heavenly host all of which is absent from Matthew's version. Yet despite their differences, such details can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory. Luke provides more historical background (the census, Quirinius etc.), whereas Matthew presents things within a more obviously theological framework (exemplified by his Old Testament citations at 1:23; 2:6). Within the New Testament canon, both accounts together offer a rounded view of Jesus arrival. Although Matthew and Luke present rather different perspectives on the birth of Christ, they do have several key points in common: 1 Joseph & Mary lived in Nazareth (Matt 2:4; Luke 1:26) 2 Despite this, Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4) 3 Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35) 4 Mary was betrothed to Joseph (Matt 1:18; Luke 2:5)

5 Mary was still a virgin when pregnant with Jesus (Luke 1:27,34; Matt 1:18, 23) 6 Mary's child would be called Jesus (Saviour) (Matt 1:18, 25; Luke 1:31) 7 He would also be called Christ (Messiah) (Matt 1:18, 2:4; Luke 2:11) 8 Jesus was in the line of David (Luke 1:27,32, 2:4, 3:23-38; Matt 2:17,20) 9 Jesus would inherit David's throne as 'King of the Jews' (Matt 2:2, 2:6-7; Luke 1:32) 10 Jesus was divine ('Son of God'/'God with us') (Luke 1:32; Matt 1:23) These 10 propositions are worth remembering when we come more broadly to consider the reliability of the birth narratives. It is possible that Luke did not liaise with Matthew: unlike Matthew, he was not one of the twelve disciples. Yet the core details of the two accounts are remarkably consistent, implying a basically shared grasp of what happened. Indeed, the fact that each writer chooses to emphasise different secondary details suggests an independence from one another which makes their agreement on the main substance of the story all the more compelling - not least their convergence on the extraordinary, unique circumstances of Jesus' conception. Beyond all this, of course, the events recorded by Matthew and Luke need to be assessed in relation to external evidence. This is where skepticism becomes most widespread. Again, however, there is much that bears out the orthodox view. External Evidence Not surprisingly in our rationalistic age, most have challenged the birth narratives at those points where they report supernatural interventions of God. There is also some debate, however, over certain plain points of history. We shall deal with these historical issues first. Was There a Census? Both Acts 5:37 and the Jewish historian Josephus record that a census took place during the period when a man called Quirinius governed Syria. The problem is that this census almost certainly took place in 6AD, which is usually reckoned to be later than the date of Jesus' birth.

Since Luke apparently describes the census taken when Mary was pregnant as Quirinius' 'first', there may be a difficulty. However: Luke may have known of an earlier census which has not been preserved in other records. The word prote in Luke 2:2 is usually translated 'first' but could mean before or prior.. The text would then read 'This census was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria'. Papyri from Egypt have shown in three separate instances that a census was initiated by Caesar Augustus and conducted in various provinces of the Roman empire every 14 years or so. These censuses were clearly conducted for tax purposes - just as reported by Luke. Some have pointed out that censuses were illegal in 'client kingdoms' of the Roman empire such as that presided over by Herod. However, in extreme cases Rome did step in, and this seems to have happened here. We know, for instance, that Herod was only allowed to mint copper coins rather than silver ones, which suggests that his economy was being controlled by the emperor and Rome, and that they ordered the census in order to maintain a hold on financial situation in Palestine. Was Herod King? Was Quirinius really Govenor of Syria at the time? We know that Herod died in 4BC, so if we follow Matthew (who mentions Herod), Jesus must have been born before then. It has long been known that a man called Quirinius was imperial legate of Syria-Cilicia between 6-9AD. As we have seen, Quirinius is also known to have conducted a census in 6AD. Yet this census need not be equated with the one recorded by Luke as Quirinius 'first'. Even here, however, the problem remains that to reconcile Matthew with Luke, Quirinius must be found to have governed in Palestine before 6AD, during the reign of Herod. How could this have been? Two main explanations have been given: The archaeologist E. Jerry Vardaman has discovered micrographic lettering on coins and inscriptions of the time which states that Quirinius was proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11BC until some time after the death of Herod the Great in 4BC - an earlier tenure than had been previously thought, and one which covers the period of Jesus' birth under Herod.

An incomplete manuscript from the period describes the career of an officer whose name is not preserved, but who could well have been Quirinius. This officer is said to have become imperial legate of Syria 'for a second time'. This may be a clue that Quirinius served twice in the region, once before 4BC, while Herod was still alive, and once after, i.e. from 6-9AD Was there really 'a star in the east'? The star followed by the Magi in Matthew 2 seems to have been prophesied in Numbers 24:17 and Isaiah 60:3. It has usually been accounted for in one of five ways: i) It may have been Halleys Comet, which appeared in 11BC although this is rather early for the birth of Jesus. ii) It may have been another comet. This would have moved against the stars, and would have been considered very significant by astrologers like the Magi. iii) It may have been a planetary conjunction. There was a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn and Venus in early 7BC. Again, astrologers would have noticed this. iv) It may have been a lunar occultation or eclipse of Jupiter. In 1999, astronomer Michael Molnar published a book entitled The Star of Bethlehem The Legacy of the Magi. Molnars chance purchase of a Roman coin from 6AD featuring the ram of Aries looking back at an overhead star led him to reexamine the astronomical data. He found that on April 17, 6BC, the bright planet Jupiter was in the east, in Aries, together with both the sun and the moon. Aries at that time functioned as the sign of the Jews. Herod and the people of Jerusalem did not practice astrology as it was pagan, which explains why they did not recognise the significance of the event. But it was very special in astrological terms, since Jupiter becoming a morning star was held to confer great kingships on unborn children. It could therefore have triggered the journey of the Magi from their eastern home to find the new King of the Jews. v) It may have been a nova. Novae happen regularly: a faint star suddenly glows much brighter, and then fades. But novae are not usually visible to the naked eye. vi) It may have been a supernova. These are extremely rare. They dominate the night sky and produce more light than all the other stars. Chinese astronomers recorded a nova/supernova at about the

right date to be the Magis star. The phrase 'at its rising' (Matt 2:2) compares this star with the light of the sun, which would certainly be consistent with a supernova. Of course, the main theological significance of the star is that it confirms Gods ordering of his created universe around the most crucial event in its history. The stars light heralds Jesus, the Light of the World (cf. John 8:12; 9:5). However we seek to explain things cosmologically, it is clear that stars do not usually 'stop' over places, as this one did over Bethlehem (Matt 2:10). We are meant to understand that God is also involved in a miraculous way. Did the Magi really make the trip? The Magi certainly existed. Herodotus describes them as a tribe of the Medes who had a priestly function in the Persian empire. The Old Testament prophet Daniel confirms this, and adds that that they are a class of 'wise men' who practise astrology and interpret dreams and oracles (Dan. 1:20, 2:27; 5:15) 'The East' in Matthew's description is most likely Arabia or Babylon. It is a long way from there to Palestine, but pilgrimages such as the one which the Magi made were very common in the ancient world. No doubt, their place in Matthew's gospel has a theological purpose: their involvement underlines that Jesus would be the Saviour of both Jews and Gentiles. Still, this need not detract from the historicity of their visit. For the record, it is worth noting that the Magi were not necessarily Kings - Christian tradition has inferred this from Psalm 72:10 and Isaiah 49:7; 60:3, but it is not there in Matthew's text. Also, the idea that they were three in number has been inferred from their three gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Again, however, this is mere supposition. Was there really a slaughter of the innocents? The massacre reported by Matthew in 2:16 is something which many scholars think Matthew simply made up. They claim that he did this to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses, or to highlight the judgement Israel would have to face for rejecting her Messiah. But this ignores the fact that this action is quite consistent with what historians record about the last years of Herods reign. External sources attest that he was violent and tyrannical, and although none actually report this particular incident, it is hardly out of keeping with his general approach.

The other point to make is that Bethlehem was a small town. Hence a relatively small number of children are likely have been killed in its 'vicinity'. Indeed, even quite conservative scholars have put the figure as low as 12. Horrific it may have been, but in the scale of world events, it is not so surprising that it failed to make the ancient history books. Finally, it is unlikely that Matthew would have bothered so assiduously to link all this to Old Testament prophecy if the event had not occurred. His quotation from Jeremiah 31:15 is not in itself especially messianic. Was Jesus really born of a virgin? This, perhaps, is the most contentious question of all. The basic points are these: Matthew 1:23 states that the birth of Christ took place to fulfill Isa. 7:14, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel (which means, God with us)'. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word alma, which could mean simply 'young woman' as well as 'virgin'. But Matthew quotes from the Greek version of the OT known known as the Septuagint, which renders alma as parthenon, which clearly means 'virgin'. In response to all this, some have argued that Matthew is deliberately trying to 'mythologise' Jesus by choosing the Septuagint version so as to re-cast what was actually a natural birth from a 'young woman' as a 'parthenogenesis' (virginal conception). The more positive view, of course, is that Matthew chose the Septuagint translation because it helped to clarify what actually happened.Also, it is worth remembering that Luke corroborates the virgin birth by twice in 1.27 calling Mary a 'virgin', and by reporting her shock at Gabriel's annunciation: 'How can this be, since I have no husband?'. As to whether Mary herself was likely to have been a virgin, her betrothal to Joseph would almost certainly have been 'arranged'. The cultural conventions of the time meant that he would probably have been older than her (he certainly disappears from the scene after Jesus' birth, whereas Mary goes on to outlive Jesus). Their engagement would have lasted a year, during which time they would have continued to live in their own homes. What is more, potential brides were often physically examined for virginity, as this was seen to be an attractive marriageable quality.

Besides all this, as we have seen, both Matthew and Luke stress that Jesus was not only born of a virgin but also conceived of the Holy Spirit. This, in a sense, is the more important detail. The virgin birth follows from the fact that the 'begetter' of Jesus is not Joseph, but God Himself. This is a uniquely divine birth, initiated by God. If one accepts this, it should really not be so hard to accept that the birth took place through a virgin. Dreams, angels and other supernatural phenomena The supernatural details of the birth narratives - not only the virgin birth but also the dreams, the angels and the unlikely escape to Egypt are never likely to be 'proved' by historical research alone. In this sense, they lie beyond the brief of this paper. Of course, there are many recorded instances today of angelic encounters and prescient dreams. This suggests that, even if they cannot be laboratory tested, the mention of such things by Matthew and Luke can scarcely be confined to the realm of ancient mythology. Conclusion Christianity must be credible - and as we have seen, it does have historical origins. It is centred on a real man, born at a specific time in a particular place. Although it is still ultimately a faith, it is misleading to divorce the faith element from the fact element. It is a staple of contemporary philosophy and science that all acts of knowing require some form of personal participation. Clearly, believing the more extraordinary details of the Christmas story becomes easier when we believe in the central character of the Christmas story. But this does not mean that Christians who trust Matthews and Lukes history are indulging in mere wishfulfilment. There is corroborative evidence, and it deserves to be taken seriously. Yet before we get too bogged down in arguments about precise dates, censuses, stellar conjunctions and the like, we need to ask, How do we respond to the man that Jesus became? Do we accept that he is what he said he was? And if so, what are we going to do about it?