Circumstances of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth entailed a three-way confluence of events from locations in Rome, Persia and Nazareth, hundred miles apart from each other and months in the making. Incredibly, it all culminated in a small town where none of the figures of the story lived.
Two Gospel accounts cover the Nativity story, Matthew and Luke, each complimenting the other with few overlapping details. According to Luke, Caesar Augustus issued a registration decree although the Roman story behind the story is not told.
Caesar Augustus was designated Pater Patrie, Father of the County, on February 5, 2 BC, by the Roman Senate. The achievement was one the 35 highlights in The Deeds of Divine Augustus listing the accomplishments of Caesar over his 25 years of rule.[1]
To honor Augustus in 2 BC, planning began for a special registration of the entire Roman Empire including the provinces, not just the typical census for citizens of Rome. Each registrant was expected to swear an oath of allegiance to Augustus.[2]
Logistics to execute this registration decree required considerable planning, time and resources, especially in a era without electricity, computers, phones, etc. For town criers, praeco in Latin, to announce the decree in far reaching locations would take months.[3]
Meanwhile, Magi “from the East” (Persia, by reputation and historical context), according to Matthew, saw stellar and planetary alignments signaling something exceptional was about to happen – the birth of a King of Judea. Not just any King – what they saw was so awe-inspiring, they were moved to act.
Believing wholeheartedly in their observations, they planned a journey that would cover hundreds of miles by camel in a quest to find this special baby King. Much more than just a tribute visit, they intended to present the baby with precious gifts and worship him.
Greek text of Matthew uses the word proskynēsai or proskuneo translated as “worship.” Meaning of the word is “to do reverence to;” “bow down or bow down before;” “kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one).”[4]
Not knowing their final destination, the Magi initially headed for Jerusalem, the government center of Judea. The city seemed to be a good place to get information and they went to the palace of Judea’s King Herod to ask him.
In another concurrent series of events while the Magi were on their journey to Jerusalem, Joseph and Mary were busy going about their daily business. Preparing for the arrival of their new baby, they were planning his birth in Nazareth without any clue what was about to befall them.
Suddenly, everything changed – a praeco announced Augustus’ registration decree that compelled the betrothed couple to do the unthinkable. On short notice, an unplanned 90-mile trek on foot to register in Bethlehem to comply with the decree was required in-spite-of Mary’s imminent childbirth.[5]
No one or thing trumped a decree by a Roman Caesar and although it is not definitively stated that the decree had a deadline, Rome expected prompt compliance. Evidence of this urgency is seen by the immediate response of Joseph and Mary.
People were required to register in the home town of their family linage. In the case of Joseph and Mary, it was Bethlehem, the home town of King David who lived about a 1000 years earlier.
No doubt Mary would give birth before they returned to Nazareth where Mary should have been with her family and friends. If the praeco had announced the decree about two weeks earlier or later, Jesus would not have been born in Bethlehem.
Weary from the unplanned long trip from Nazareth, Joseph and Mary discovered lodging accommodations in Bethlehem were full and they had to stay in a stable. As if this situation wasn’t challenging enough, Mary went into labor in the stable and was forced to give birth to Jesus using a manger for his crib.
According to Luke, the birth of Jesus was heralded by a host of angels. Shepherds left their flocks in the fields and went to Bethlehem to see this sight.
Arrival in Jerusalem by the Magi entourage was big news since it was not often that Magi visited the city being off the major trade routes…and it likely caused a stir.[6] Furthermore, Judaism shunned the mystic practices of the Magi even though they were favored by the Herod.
King Herod immediately granted the Magi access to his palace when the they arrived. Magi informed him of a new King of Judea, one with his own star – it was most shocking news to the reigning King.
At that point, Herod did not know any further details and dismissed the Magi. However, it can be surmised the King believed that the Magi knew something profound, both considering their reputation and the fact of their long journey to honor and worship this baby.[7]
Herod summonsed the Jewish chief priests and scribes and asked if they knew where Christos was to be born. No ambiguity surrounded the question, the Jewish religion experts knew exactly what Herod was asking.
An ancient prophecy from the Jewish prophet Micah foretold the Messiah was to be born in “Bethlehem in land of Judah.”[8] Herod believed the prophecy as evidenced by his next actions.
Planning to exchange this prophetic knowledge to learn the exact location of the baby, Herod secretly called the Magi to return back to the palace. The Magi unwittingly agreed to the deal.
After leaving Herod’s palace, “his Star” reappeared at some point to the Magi and it shone over Bethlehem corroborating the information. Still not exactly sure of their final destination, they headed South toward Bethlehem just a short distance away.
Far off the path of a major trade route, unexpectedly the Magi from Persia arrived in Bethlehem. If their arrival was big news in Jerusalem, image what it was in the much smaller town.
Everyone knows everyone else’s business in a small town so finding the child would not have been difficult. The Magi found the new family, then presented the newborn with their precious gifts and worshiped him.
Not all the drama was finished. Warned in a dream, according to Matthew, the Magi did not return to Jerusalem to tell Herod where the Christos was located.
Once Herod realized he had been duped, he commanded that all the male babies in the Bethlehem area under 2 years of age to be killed. Actions taken by the King were consistent with his ruthless reputation.
Joseph and Mary with Jesus escaped the King’s horrific murders by hiding in Egypt until Herod died shortly thereafter. Historian Josephus describes in detail events that transpired during the final weeks leading up to the King’s death. Eventually Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth where they raised Jesus and his siblings.
Was it just a coincidence that a 3-way confluence of events culminated in Bethlehem, home town of King David … or was it a divine plan?
Matthew’s Gospel is surrounded by many questions – who, when, what, how – making it a target rich environment for those who wish to challenge its credibility. Parallel passages, dates, authorship and variation from other Gospels are all called into question.
Much of the details of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth are found only in Matthew. Less than a third of Matthew’s content is common to Mark. Slightly more than a third of the content of Matthew is not in common with Luke … Matthew’s subject matter is in many ways unique.[1]
Variation actually enhances the authenticity and credibility of Matthew. In the world of investigations, written statements that too closely resemble each other are immediately suspect of deception.[2]
Truthful, credible statements are expected to be consistent with key evidence as well as with other witness statements, yet characteristic variation is most certainly expected. A basic investigative principal: the more details, the harder to cover a deception; conversely, a deceptive statement lacks details making it more difficult to validate.
“There must, therefore, naturally arise great differences among writers, when they had no original records to lay for their foundation, which might at once inform those who had an inclination to learn, and contradict those that would tell lies…” – Josephus [3]
Distinct diversity from Luke can be seen immediately in Matthew with the genealogy of Jesus listed in reverse order along with some generational variations.[4] Three miracles and at least 10 parables found in Matthew do not appear in any other Gospel.[5]
P104 papyrus of Matthew
Joseph‘s personal circumstances are told only in Matthew such as his contemplation of divorcing Mary for becoming pregnant by another man. His mind was changed by an angel’s visitation message that Mary’s childbirth would fulfill the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of a virgin birth and instructed Joseph to name the baby “Jesus.”
Combined with Luke’s Nativity account, Matthew’s historical and astronomy attributions raises the bar of Gospel answerability to the highest degree.
Established is a narrow timeline window for the birth of Jesus with five date markers – the rules of Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius; a Roman Empire registration plus “his Star.” The Gospel also names secular historical figure Archelaus, Herod’s son, who ruled in Judea after the King died.[6]
Literary analysis and literary criticism are among important scientific methodologies used to assess credibility.[7] Integrity of the Gospel alone can be evaluated entirely based on assessing just its content.
One of the most famous teachings of Jesus, unique to Matthew, is the famed “Sermon on the Mount” including nine verses of Beatitudes, all beginning with “Blessed are…” Covering 106 verses through three chapters, the sermon’s details required an eyewitness.[8]
Perhaps the biggest clue from Matthew to the divine nature of Jesus is from his personal perspective as One who watched Jerusalem throughout its history. The author of Luke chose to include Matthew’s quoted statement of Jesus in his own investigative report:[9]
MT 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (NKJV)
Moving to the crucifixion, burial and the Resurrection, Matthew solely recounts details surrounding the death of Jesus. Described by the Gospel are an earthquake, stones split in two, and tombs being opened with bodies coming back to life.[10]
Precluding several conspiracy claims, Matthew uniquely describes the chain of custody over the body of Jesus – the crucifixion by Rome; burial by a member of the Jewish Council; the Jewish leadership’s request for Pilate to secure the tomb exclusively using the Greek word koustodia; and the early morning events of Sunday.[11]
Morning of the Resurrection, Matthew includes the lone accounts of several key happenings – the angel rolling away the stone from the empty tomb; the earthquake; the proclamation of the angel; dereliction of the Guards and their report to the chief priests. Later that same day, Matthew includes the resurrected appearance of Jesus to women of Galilee.
Use of common reference materials evidenced by the parallel passages, sometimes verbatim, appears in all three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.[12] Parallel passages cited as alleged credibility issues can be attributed to legitimate literary protocols of the day.
Copying from another source to serve as a “witness” was a respected form of citation and corroboration. It was common practice to copy from another source, even verbatim, without a citation. Abuses of this practice by the Greeks were the focus of Josephus in his work, Against Apion.[13]
Authorship of Matthew is not claimed within the Gospel itself. Not penning a work was characteristic Jewish practice for reasons of humility, to avoid bringing fame or attention to the author. Examples of other Jewish works without authorship or a formal identify are the authors of books within the Old Testament, the Tenakh.[14]
Customarily Matthew is believed, based on sources who lived in very close time proximity, to have been written by one of the 12 Disciples of Jesus for whom the Gospel is named – an eyewitness account.[15] Other scholars and skeptics with differing views believe Matthew was written by someone else; is a collection of stories and oral traditions; or is even completely fictitious.[16]
Which was written first, Mark or Matthew, is debatable although clearly Matthew is much longer with much more detail. Many religion authorities believe Matthew was written sometime between 55-75 AD; others view the date range from 90-100 AD.[17]
Both Gospel timeframe possibilities are during the first century when some of the original Disciples were still alive as were probably some from the Sanhedrin who lived at the same time as Jesus of Nazareth. If any details of the information was found to be untrue, no evidence from these contemporaries refutes it.
Portions of Matthew were corroborated by the eyewitness account of John’s Gospel written independently from his prison cell; Luke’s investigative Gospel; and secular history.[18] Considering the customary literary protocols, the allegation of literary misconduct is rendered to be a non-issue.
What remains to assess the credibility of Matthew is its believability. Are the Gospel’s detailed accounts fabrications… or do the unique details in Matthew indicate truthfulness and credibility?
For centuries many have endeavored to prove or disprove the Gospel of Luke’s account about the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Some have focused on the integrity of the content, others on the identity of the unnamed author; however, there are substantial factors to consider.
Among the first to document the identity of the author of the Gospel was Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp who was in turn a pupil of John, one of the original 12 Disciples of Jesus.[1] Irenaeus identified the author as the Gentile doctor named Luke, the inseparable traveling companion of the Apostle Paul mentioned several times in New Testament books.[2]
Logic is a big factor – consider he was educated as a doctor and a source just one generation removed from the Disciple John.
Credibility of a statement can be determined regardless of the identity of the author. In this case, the Gospel author’s first defining point of credibility is where his investigative letter is addressed to a specific person.
Theophilus is the same name to whom the Book of Acts was also written establishing both accountability and consistency of the two accounts. Josephus identified Theophilus as the next High Priest after Jonathan circa 37-40 AD.[3]
Very clearly the author describes to Theophilus the basis of his investigation:
LK 1:1-4 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (NIV)
Not himself an eyewitness, instead Luke identifies the sources of his investigation, noted as “many,” being original eyewitnesses and he personally investigated their validity. Evidence can be seen in the quotes and parallels passages found in the older Gospels of Matthew and Mark and corroborated with information by John account.
From a different perspective, the author’s omissions of certain witness accounts and miracles that are mentioned in the other Gospels.[4] Nearly half of Luke’s content is unique in which 6 miracles are reported, including the resurrection of a dead boy, and 15-17 parables (was it an illustration or a parable?).[5]
Included in Luke, too, are the exclusive accounts of the birth circumstances of John the Baptist; the identity of his father, Zachariah and mother, Elizabeth, and her role with Mary during their pregnancies; the angel Gabriel with his messages from God delivered separately to Zachariah and Mary, and Mary’s hymn of praise.
Found only in Luke and Acts are the two Greek words, apographo andapographe – a verb and a noun – cited as the motivation for Joseph to take his nearly 9-month pregnant wife, Mary, to Bethlehem 90 miles away. Neither Greek word translates to the equivalent English word of “census,” often imprecisely used in Matthew’s Christmas Nativity story.[6]
Seven government rulers are identified in Luke, all corroborated in secular history includingCaesar Augustus , Tiberius Caesar, Judean King Herod, and Tetrarchs Herod and Philip.[7] Two “governors,” Quirinius and Pilate, were both identified using the exclusive Greek word hegemoneuo, meaning to act with authority as governors, though not necessarily official “governors.”[8]
Two specific crucifixion scenarios are found only in the Luke’s Gospel. Quoted is the conversation between the criminals being crucified with Jesus. Upon his death, distraught witnesses reacted by “beating their breasts” in severe mourning.
Distinctively identified and quoted are Resurrection witnesses. Most notable is Cleopas with his traveling partner heading home to Emmaus after being with some of the Disciples that weekend.[9]
Unrecognized, Jesus joined Cleopas and his partner walking down the road and asked what they were discussing so intently. Cleopas is quoted explaining the sequence of events involving the encounter by the women of Galilee with angels at the empty tomb who proclaimed Jesus was alive and how the empty tomb was confirmed by other unnamed witnesses.[10]
Corroborating John’s eyewitness Gospel account of the gathering of Disciples and followers in the locked room that Sunday evening, Luke adds a distinguishing depiction of events. Cleopas and his partner had rejoined the gathering telling of their encounter with the resurrected Jesus and, in turn, they were told Jesus had also appeared to Simon (Peter).
Terrified is how the excited group encounter is described by Luke when Jesus suddenly appeared in the locked room. Thinking they were seeing a ghost, Jesus calmed their fears saying “Do you have anything here to eat?” and ate some fish to prove he was not a ghost.[11]
Omitted is key information which could otherwise enhance the Resurrection account if the author had chosen to do so. Missing is Mary Magdalene’s encounter with the resurrected Jesus and John running with Peter to see the empty tomb, both reported events that astounding morning.
One possible reason for the omissions is revealed in Cleopas’ witness statement. At the point when he departed for home that Sunday morning, it was before anyone had reported seeing the resurrected Jesus.
Omission of Mary Magdalene encounter with Jesus is a big clue that his Gospel is a collection of witness accounts. Luke had to be aware of Mary Magdalene’s encounter with resurrected Jesus through his investigation, by knowing Paul, contacts with the Disciples and interviews of other witnesses.[12]
Previously, Mary Magdalene was identified as the one from whom Jesus expelled seven demons early in his ministry. Later, Mary Magdalene was one of the three named women generally reported to have run back from the empty tomb to tell the Disciples of their experience.
Only twice in the entire Gospel of Luke is Mary Magdalene mentioned.[13] No statements are specifically attributed to Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke and therein lies the potential reason for the omission.
Mary Magdalene was not a witness that Luke interviewed. If Luke did not have direct access to her as an eyewitness source, then he chose not to include her secondhand account.
Likewise are similar reasons for not identifying the traveling partner of Cleopas and omitting John running with Peter to see the empty tomb – neither were available witnesses to the author. (In his own eyewitness Gospel, John identifies himself as the “other disciple” who joined the race to the tomb.)[14]
Forthright acknowledgements, exclusive specific details, omissions of information seen in other Gospels; corroboration by secular history; named witnesses; quotes; lack of personal opinions or injections; and ignored opportunities to embellish – all are hallmarks of a straightforward, true investigative report.
Is Luke’s Gospel authorship and investigative account true?
