Responses to Bismikaallahuma : Problems In Reconciling The Birth Narratives of Jesus

One of the major criticisms of oral tradition development is that the period of oral tradition (as defined by the critics) is not long enough to have allowed the alterations in the tradition. Speaking of the brevity of the time element involved in the writing of the New Testament, Simon Kistemaker, professor of Bible at Dordt College, writes:

Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over the centuries of time. But in conformity with the thinking of the form critic, we must conclude that the gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation. In terms of the form-critical approach, the formation of the individual gospel units must be understood as a telescoped project with accelerated course of action. (KiS.G 48-49)

A.H. McNeile, former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Dublin, challenges form critic's concept of oral tradition. He points out that form critics do not deal with the tradition of Jesus' words as closely as they should. A careful look at 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12 and 25 shows the careful preservation and the existence of a genuine tradition of recording these words. In the Jewish religion it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi's teaching. A good pupil was like "a plastered cistern that loses not a drop" (Mishna, Aboth, 2, 8). If we rely on C.F. Burney's theory (in The Poetry of Our Lord, 1925), we can assume that much of the Lord's teaching is in Aramaic poetical form, making it easy to be memorized. (McA.IS 54)

Analyzing form criticism, Albright [Sam- The late renowned archaeologist William F. Albright] wrote: "Only modern scholars who lack both historical method and perspective can spin such a web of speculation as that with which form critics have surrounded the gospel tradition." Albright's own conclusion was that "a period of twenty to fifty years is too slight to permit of any appreciable corruption of the essential content and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus." (AIW.FSA 297-98) (McDowell & Wilson, He Walked Among Us Evidence for the Historical Jesus [Thomas Nelson Publishers-Nashville TN, 1993], p. 111)

Concerning the primary-source value of the New Testament records, F.F. Bruce, former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, says:

And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, "We are eyewitnesses of these things"; but also, "As you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective. (BrF.NTD 16ff., 33)

Lawrence J. McGinley of Saint Peter's College comments on the value of hostile witnesses in relationship to recorded events:

First of all, eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would be challenged. (McLFC 25)

New Testament scholar Robert Grant of the University of Chicago concludes:

At the time they [the synoptic gospels] were written or may be supposed to have been written there were eyewitnesses and their testimony was not completely discarded… This means that the gospels must be regarded as largely reliable witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (GraR.HI 302) (pp. 115-116)

Combining the presence of eyewitnesses with the short time period, E.B. Redlich, himself a form critic, states:

In point of fact, it is another weakness of form criticism that it sits too lightly on the results of literary criticism and assumes that the formative period lasted about two generations of forty years. Thus, in their investigations there is a tendency to overlook the presence and influence of those who were eyewitnesses and earwitnesses of the events of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and could therefore guarantee the historical value of the tradition. (ReE.FC 15-16)

James Martin, New Testament professor at Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, emphasizes:

There was no time for the gospel story of Jesus to have been produced by legendary accretion. The growth of legend is always a slow and gradual thing. But in this instance the story of Jesus was being proclaimed, substantially as the gospels now record it, simultaneously with the beginning of the Church. (MarJ.RG 103-4) (p. 130)

James Martin adds:

There can be little doubt that, if the Christians had been guilty of inconsistency in the repetition of their tradition, their enemies would have been able to rout them ignominiously from the field, making them a public laughingstock and effectively ensuring that their preaching would have no impact on the minds of any who heard it. (MarJ.RG 68) (p. 142)

The work of the early Christian community, then, was to communicate, not create, the words and deeds of Jesus. In this communication process, as noted University of Cambridge New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule recognized, "the synoptic gospels represent primarily the recognition that a vital element in evangelism is the plain story of what happened in the ministry of Jesus." (MoCF.IE 175-176) Thus, the role of eyewitnesses became extremely important and it has been overlooked or ignored by most form critics. Biblical studies professors Robert Thomas and Stan Gundry charge:

In effect, form critics see Christianity as cut off from its founder and His disciples by an inexplicable ignorance. The new sect had to invent situations for the words of Jesus and put into His mouth words that memory could not check and that He may not have said. But still living in those early days were leaders and disciples who had heard and seen what they recounted (Acts 2:1-4). The form critic either forgets or ignores the fact that Jesus had a surviving mother and followers who had many vivid memories of His life and ministry. There is no reason to suppose that the individuals mentioned in Mark 3:31-35, 4:10, 15:40, and 16:1-8 would not have remembered these things. (ThR.H 282)

Vincent Taylor recognized:

If the form critics are right, the disciples must have been translated to heaven immediately after the resurrection. As Bultmann sees it, the primitive community exists in vacuo, cut off from its founder by the walls of an inexplicable ignorance. (TaV.FGT/33 41) (p. 137)

This reconstruction has numerous weaknesses. The independent existence of collected testimonia is not certain. There is no evidence of Midrashim written on such a diverse collection of texts (if the collection itself ever existed). The presupposed antithesis between theology and history is false; on the face of it, Matthew records history so as to bring out its theological significance and its relation to Scripture. Matthew writes at so early a time that if Jesus had not been born in Bethlehem this claim would have been challenged. We are dealing with decades, not the millennium and a half separating Moses from Josephus. (The Expositors Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Frank E. Gaebelein general editor [Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1984], p. 83; underlined emphasis ours)

… Some argue that the (to us) artificial way these chapters cite the OT shows a small concern for historicity. The reverse argument is surely more impressive: If the events of Matthew 1-2 do not relate easily to the OT texts, this attests their historical credibility, for no one in his right mind would invent "fulfillment" episodes problematic to the texts being fulfilled. The fulfillment texts, though difficult, do fit into a coherent pattern (cf. Introduction, section 11.b, and below on 1.22-23). More importantly, their presence shows that Matthew sees Jesus as one who fulfills the OT. This not only sets the stage for some of Matthew's most important themes; it also means that Matthew is working from a perspective on salvation history that depends on before and after, prophecy and fulfillment, type and antitype, relative ignorance and progressive revelation. This has an important bearing on our discussion of midrash, because whatever else Jewish midrash may be, it is not related to salvation history or fulfillment schemes. Add to the foregoing considerations the fact that, wherever chapters 1-2 can be tested against known background of Herod the Great, MATTHEW PROVES RELIABLE (see details below). There is a good case for treating chapters 1-2 as both history and theology. (pp. 72-73; underlined and capital emphasis ours)

If Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel's Exodus from Egypt, in what sense can Matthew mean that Jesus' return to the land of Israel "fulfilled" this text? Four observations clarify the issue.

1. Many have noticed that Jesus is often presented in the NT as the antitype of Israel or, better, the typological recapitulation of Israel. Jesus' temptation after forty days of fasting recapitulated the forty years' trial of Israel (see on 4:1-11). Elsewhere, if Israel is the vine that does not bring forth the expected fruit, Jesus, by contrast, is the True Vine (Isa 5; John 15). The reason Pharaoh must let the people of Israel go is that Israel is the Lord's son (Exod 4:22-23), a theme picked up by Jeremiah (31:9) as well as Hosea (cf. also Ps 2:6, 12). The "son" theme in Matthew (cf. esp. T. de Kruijf, Der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie des Matthausevangeliums [Rome: BIP, 1962], pp. 56-58, 109), already present since Jesus is messianic "son of David" and, by the virginal conception, Son of God becomes extraordinarily prominent in Matthew (see on 3:17): "This is my Son whom I love."

2. The verb to "fulfill" has broader significance than mere one-to-one prediction (cf. Introduction, section 11.b; and comments on 5:17). Not only in Matthew but elsewhere in the NT, the history and laws of the OT are perceived to have prophetic significance (cf. 5:17-20). The Epistle to the Hebrews argues that the laws regarding the tabernacle and the sacrificial system were from the beginning designed to point toward the only Sacrifice that could really remove sin and the only Priest who could serve once and for all as the effective Mediator between God and man. Likewise Paul insists that the Messiah sums up his people in himself. When David was anointed king, the tribes acknowledged him as their bone and flesh (2 Sam 5:1), i.e., David as anointed king summed up Israel, with the result that his sin brought disaster on the people (2 Sam 12, 24). Just as Israel is God's son, so the promised Davidic Son is also the Son of God (2 Sam 7:13-14; cf. N.T. Wright, "The Paul of History," Tyndale Bulletin 29 [1978]; esp. 66-67). "Fulfillment" must be understood against the background of these interlocking themes and their typological connections.

3. It follows, therefore, that the NT writers do not think they are reading back into the OT things that are not already there germinally. This does not mean that Hosea had the Messiah in mind when he penned Hosea 11:1. This admission prompts W.L. Lasor ("Prophecy, Inspiration, and Sensus Plenior," Tyndale Bulletin 29 [1978]; 49-60) to see in Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 an example of sensus plenior, by which he means a "fuller sense" than what was in Hosea's mind, but something nevertheless in the mind of God. But so blunt an appeal to what God has absolutely hidden seems a strange background for Matthew's insisting that Jesus' exodus from Egypt in any sense fulfills the Hosea passage. This observation is not trivial; Matthew is reasoning with Jews who could say, "You are not playing fair with the text!" A mediating position is therefore necessary.

Hosea 11 pictures God's love for Israel. Although God threatens judgment and disaster, yet because he is God and not man (11:9), he looks to a time when in compassion he will roar like a lion and his children will return to him (11:10-11). In short Hosea himself looks forward to a saving visitation by the Lord. Therefore his prophecy fits into the larger pattern of OT revelation up to that point, revelation that both explicitly and implicitly points to the Seed of the woman, the Elect Son of Abraham, the Prophet like Moses, the Davidic King, the Messiah. The "son" language is part of this messianic matrix (cf. Willis J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise [New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1905], pp. 331-335); insofar as that matrix points to Jesus the Messiah and insofar as Israel's history looks forward to one who sums it up, then so far also Hosea 11:1 looks forward. To ask whether Hosea thought of Messiah is to ask the wrong question, akin to using a hacksaw when a scalpel is needed. It is better to say that Hosea, building on existing revelation, grasped the messianic nuances of the "son" language already applied to Israel and David's promised heir in previous revelation so that had he been able to see Matthew's use of 11:1, he would not have disapproved, even if messianic nuances were not in his mind when he wrote that verse. He provided one small part of the revelation unfolded during salvation history; but that part he himself understood to be a pictorial representative of divine, redeeming love.

The NT writers insist that the OT can be rightly interpreted only if the entire revelation is kept as it is historically unfolded (e.g., Gal 3:6-14). Hermeneutically this is not an innovation. OT writers drew lessons out of earlier salvation history, lessons difficult to perceive while that history was being lived, but lessons that retrospect would clarify (e.g. Asaph on Ps 78; cf. Matt 13:35). Matthew does the same in the context of the fulfillment of OT hopes in Jesus Christ. We may therefore legitimately speak of a "fuller meaning" than any one text provides. But the appeal should be made, not to some hidden divine knowledge, but to the pattern of revelation up to that time - a pattern not yet adequately discerned. The new revelation may therefore be truly new, yet at the same time capable of being checked against the old.

4. If this interpretation of Matthew 2:15 is correct, it follows that for Matthew Jesus himself is the locus of true Israel. This does not necessarily mean that God has no further purpose for racial Israel; but it does mean that the position of God's people in the Messianic Age is determined by reference to Jesus, not race. (pp. 91-93)

Before leaving the subject of Jesus' birth, one further incident needs to be considered from a historical point of view: the story about the slaughtering of the innocents in Matt. 2:16-18. As we have already seen, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Herod was paranoid about potential rivals to his throne, and especially so toward the end of his life. At the very least, then, this story is historically plausible. We should also stress that Bethlehem was a very small town, meaning that we should not envision the slaughtering of dozens of children; indeed, one dozen may be the most that would have been involved. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this event, if historical, transpired after the time of Jesus' birth and after the visit of the magi, and so presumably after the time when the town was crowded with registrants for the census. It is not an argument against the historicity of this story that Josephus does not mention it. His silence may reflect his ignorance of the matter, which would have been a small-scale action at most. Richardson argues that the account in Matt. 2:3-4 suggests an improbable relationship between Herod, the temple authorities and their scribes, and the Sanhedrin, but in fact, Richardson himself has pointed out that Herod had a firm hand on the temple authorities and the Sanhedrin, and would have had occasion to consult them on religious matters (e.g., he must have done so about the training of the priests for the building of the temple). A Herod who would not scruple at executing some of his own sons would have had few qualms about executing a few Jewish children if one of them was viewed as a potential threat to his throne. Thus, we can only say that while the historical substance of this story cannot be confirmed by outside sources, the essence of the story comports with what we know about Herod and his paranoia. Even the story about the flight into Egypt gains plausibility when we compare Herod's story, for at one juncture, as previously noted, HE DID THE SAME. (Witherington, New Testament History A Narrative Account [Baker Academic, A division of Baker Book House; November 2001, ISBN: 0801022932], p. 72; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Many commentators think that this account [Sam- Matt. 2:13-15] has been created to flesh out the OT text said to be "fulfilled" (v. 15). On the broader crucial questions, see introductory comments at 1:18-25 and 2:1-12. Granted what we know of Herod's final years, there is nothing historically improbable about this account; and precisely because the fulfillment text is difficult, one may assume that the story called forth reflection on the OT text rather than vice versa. (p. 90; underlined emphasis ours)

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, 'Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.' When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 'In Bethlehem in Judea,' they replied, 'for this is what the prophet has written: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel."' Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, 'Go and make a careful search for the child. AS SOON AS YOU FIND HIM, REPORT TO ME, SO I TOO MAY GO AND WORSHIP HIM.' After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. 'Get up,' he said, 'take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.' So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son.' WHEN HEROD REALIZED THAT HE HAD BEEN OUTWITTED BY THE MAGI, HE WAS FURIOUS, AND HE GAVE ORDERS TO KILL ALL THE BOYS IN BETHLEHEM AND ITS VICINITY WHO WERE TWO YEARS OLD AND UNDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TIME HE HAD LEARNED FROM THE MAGI." Matthew 2:1-16

"After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead.' So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene.'" Matthew 2:19-23

And when the angels (al-malaikatu) said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation. O Mary! Be obedient to thy Lord, prostrate thyself and bow with those who bow (in worship). This is of the tidings of things hidden. We reveal it unto thee (Muhammad). Thou wast not present with them when they threw their pens (to know) which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor wast thou present with them when they quarrelled (thereupon). (And remember) when the angels (al-malaikatu) said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah). He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous. She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her OUR SPIRIT (Roohana) and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.

"Behold! The angels said: 'O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.' She said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?' He said: 'Even so; Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!'" S. 3:45-47

"He said: 'Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a pure son. She said: 'How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?' He said: 'So (it will be): thy Lord saith, "That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us". It is a matter (so) decreed.'" S. 19:19-21

Then Zachariah prayed unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Bestow upon me of Thy bounty goodly offspring. Lo! Thou art the Hearer of Prayer. And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah giveth thee glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who cometh) to confirm a word from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when age hath overtaken me already and my wife is barren? (The angel) answered: So (it will be). Allah doeth what He will. He said: My Lord! Appoint a token for me. (The angel) said: The token unto thee (shall be) that thou shalt not speak unto mankind three days except by signs. Remember thy Lord much, and praise (Him) in the early hours of night and morning. S. 3:38-41 Pickthall

A mention of the mercy of thy Lord unto His servant Zachariah. When he cried unto his Lord a cry in secret Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee). (It was said unto him): O Zachariah! Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him). He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when my wife is barren and I have reached infirm old age? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me, even as I created thee before, when thou wast naught. He said: My Lord! Appoint for me some token. He said: Thy token is that thou, with no bodily defect, shalt not speak unto mankind three nights. Then he came forth unto his people from the sanctuary, and signified to them: Glorify your Lord at break of day and fall of night. S. 19:2-11 Pickthall

And certainly Our apostles came to Ibrahim with good news. They said: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf. But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. . They said: Fear not, surely we are sent to Lut's people. And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of (a son's son) Yaqoub. She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing. They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious. So when fear had gone away from Ibrahim and good news came to him, he began to plead with Us for Lut's people. Most surely Ibrahim was forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning (to Allah): O Ibrahim! leave off this, surely the decree of your Lord has come to pass, and surely there must come to them a chastisement that cannot be averted. S. 11:69-76 Shakir

And inform them of the guests of Ibrahim: When they entered upon him, they said, Peace. He said: Surely we are afraid of you. They said: Be not afraid, surely we give you the good news of a boy, possessing knowledge. He said: Do you give me good news (of a son) when old age has come upon me? -- Of what then do you give me good news! They said: We give you good news with truth, therefore be not of the despairing. He said: And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord but the erring ones? He said: What is your business then, O apostles? They said: Surely we are sent towards a guilty people, Except Lut's followers: We will most surely deliver them all, Except his wife; We ordained that she shall surely be of those who remain behind (Illa imraatahu qaddarna innaha lamina alghabireena). S. 15:51-60 Shakir

And when Our apostles came to Ibrahim with the good news, they said: Surely we are going to destroy the people of this town, for its people are unjust. He said: Surely in it is Lut. They said: We know well who is in it; we shall certainly deliver him and his followers, except his wife; she shall be of those who remain behind (illa imraatahu kanat mina alghabireena). S. 29:31-32 Shakir

When We revealed to your mother what was revealed; Saying: Put him into a chest, then cast IT down into the river, then the river shall throw him on the shore; there shall take him up one who is an enemy to Me and enemy to him, and I cast down upon you love from Me, and that you might be brought up before My eyes; When your sister went and said: Shall I direct you to one who will take charge of him? So We brought you back to your mother, that her eye might be cooled and she should not grieve and you killed a man, then We delivered you from the grief, and We tried you with (a severe) trying. Then you stayed for years among the people of Madyan; then you came hither as ordained, O Musa. And I have chosen you for Myself: S. 20:38-41 Shakir

And We revealed to Musa's mothers, saying: Give him suck, then when you fear for him, cast HIM into the river and do not fear nor grieve; surely We will bring him back to you and make him one of the apostles. And Firon's family took him up that he might be an enemy and a grief for them; surely Firon and Haman and their hosts were wrongdoers. And Firon's wife said: A refreshment of the eye to me and to you; do not slay him; maybe he will be useful to us, or we may take him for a son; and they did not perceive. And the heart of Musa's mother was free (from anxiety) she would have almost disclosed it had We not strengthened her heart so that she might be of the believers. And she said to his sister: Follow him up. So she watched him from a distance while they did not perceive, And We ordained that he refused to suck any foster mother before, so she said: Shall I point out to you the people of a house who will take care of him for you, and they will be benevolent to him? So We gave him back to his mother that her eye might be refreshed, and that she might no grieve, and that she might know that the promise of Allah is true, but most of them do not know. S. 28:7-13 Shakir

Matthew's way of using prophecy is not what a modern scholar could call historically accurate, but it is in accord with a type of interpretation customary in New Testament times, and for that matter still practiced now. According to this way of thinking, it is assumed that the text refers to events and persons in the present or the immediate past or future. (italic emphasis ours)

The virgin birth of Jesus has become for many Christians a touchstone of faith in him and in the Bible. The modern scientific view of the universe, however, has made it a serious problem. One's position on this question depends inevitably upon the presuppositions he brings to it. One view can no more be demonstrated than another. If Jesus was a unique being, different from any other person ever born, the process of his conception and birth could have been unique also. Not being accessible to scientific observation, it cannot be proved or disproved scientifically.

Those whose understanding of the Bible is accompanied by a modern world-view, however, find it easier to understand how the belief in the virgin birth may have arisen than to accept it as historical fact. Many of the people who encountered Jesus in the flesh were probably convinced that he was no ordinary man. Without attempting to explain or formulate the idea, they may have felt that in meeting him they had somehow met God. It was inevitable that stories and beliefs about him should grow up and multiply, and in the thought-world of that day they might easily include the idea of a miraculous birth.

Equally dedicated Christians differ so widely and feel so strongly on this subject that a closer look at the biblical evidence is advisable. There is no explicit reference to the virgin birth, or even any clear allusion to it. anywhere in the New Testament outside of the first chapter of Matthew, the first chapter of Luke, and the words "betrothed" in Luke 2:5 and "as was supposed" in 3:23. Possibly it was taken for granted; yet even so it would surely have been mentioned somewhere if it had been considered a vital point of Christian faith. It does stand, however, in Matthew and Luke; and the two accounts are so different that they evidently follow independent lines of tradition. In neither Gospel, moreover, can the story be plausibly explained as a later addition to the original text of the Gospel. There are, however, some features of both narratives that call for explanation. (Millar Burrows, Jesus in the First Three Gospels; italic emphasis ours)

How should we understand and judge these familiar narratives? The whole Christmas story, mingled as it is now with Santa Claus and other more or less pagan additions, seems much like a fairy tale for children. Even so, to raise questions about the truth of the record is painful. A good deal of the story, however, is undoubtedly legendary. (emphasis ours)