Extracts from Matthew’s Nativity Story, Critically Examined by Paul Davidson.
But I want to look behind the textual curtain and see how the nativity stories came about. Matthew’s version provides an interesting example of how biblical authors worked, combining and reinterpreting Jewish scriptures and other literary sources to craft a deliberate portrait of Jesus. I will be relying on many of the observations of the 19th-century theologian David Friedrich Strauss (as my title implies) as well as the standard modern-day work on the subject—Raymond E. Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah—and other recent research where relevant.
First Dream Vision:
But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from a spirit that is holy. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matt. 1:20–21)
With regard to Herod’s instructions to report back to him, Strauss notes that surely the magi would have seen through his plan at once. There were also less clumsy methods Herod might have used to find out where the child was; why did he not, for example, send companions along with the magi to Bethlehem?
This is followed by the third dream-vision in our story—a warning to the magi. Here again, Strauss’s remarks must be noted. If the magi can receive divine guidance in dreams, why are they not told in a dream to avoid Jerusalem and go straight to Bethlehem in the first place? Many innocent lives would have been saved that way.
[Following a star] – the fact that it encourages people to believe in the “deceptive science of astrology”, as Strauss noted).
Here we have Matthew’s second fulfillment citation. Oddly, it is a combination (with some alterations) of two unconnected passages from Micah 5:2 and 2 Sam. 5:2.
But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel… (Micah 5:2a)The Lord said to you: It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel. (2 Sam. 5:2b)
Contextually, the Micah passage isn’t a bad fit for Matthew’s purposes. However, the idea of the eschatological “messiah” had not developed yet when Micah was written, and the oracle refers more to the establishment of a royal dynasty rather than an individual (see Jensen, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah [LHB/OBS 496], p. 157). There is evidence, though, that others were interpreting the passage this way in the first century: Menahem ben Hezekiah, would-be messiah and leader of the revolt of 66 CE, was allegedly a descendant of David born in Bethlehem.
Other scholars note that parthenos does not always mean “virgin”, even if that is its typical meaning. Matthew’s main interest in the verse may be the name “Emmanuel” rather than the mention of a virgin. Thompson, for example, argues that Matthew quotes this passage not because he has misread Isaiah, but because “the Immanuel cue name … signifies the role Jesus is given to play in Matthew’s story. It is the Utopian role of David and his kingdom of peace that he will play for his generation.” (Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth)
It is widely accepted that the flight to Egypt and slaughter of the innocents are based upon the story of Moses, who serves as an archetype for Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel. There are several notable parallels with the Moses story, not only in Exodus but particularly in the version told by Josephus (Antiquities 2.9.2-3):
- Pharaoh is miraculously warned of the birth of a Hebrew who threatens his kingdom. (Josephus)
Herod is miraculously told of the birth of a Jew who threatens his kingdom. - This warning comes from one of Pharaoh’s “sacred scribes”. (Josephus)
Herod learns about the baby from the magi, scribes and priests. - Pharaoh and the Egyptians are filled with fear. (Josephus)
Herod and “all Jerusalem” are frightened. - Pharaoh commands that all Hebrew infants be killed. (Josephus, Exod. 1:22)
Herod commands that all Bethlehemite infants be killed. - God appears in a dream to Amram (Moses’ father) to reassure him and thwart Pharaoh’s plans. (Josephus)
An angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream to thwart Herod’s plans. - Pharaoh dies. (Exod. 2:23)
Herod dies. - Moses is told by the Lord to return to Egypt, since “those who were seeking your life are dead.” (Exod. 4:19)
Joseph is told in a dream to return to Israel since Herod is dead. Note the near-identical wording in Matt. 2:20: “those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” - Moses takes his wife and children and returns to Egypt. (Exod. 4:20)
Joseph takes his wife and child and returns to Israel.
The fifth fulfillment citation is something of a puzzle. It matches no passage in the Old Testament, leaving us with three main options:
- It is a quotation of a now-lost document that Matthew considered to be scripture.
- It is a vague allusion to the Hebrew text of Isaiah 11:1, “There will grow a sprout from the stump of Jesse; a branch (netzer) will grow from its roots.”
- It is meant as a quotation of Judges 13:5, “the boy shall be a Nazirite.”
I find the third option to be the most convincing. The context is the miraculous birth of Samson, whose surprise conception by a barren woman is confirmed to Samson’s father Manoah by the angel of the Lord—just as in Joseph’s case. Although the two terms seem to be different at first, Schweizer and others have argued that a stronger case can be made for term “Nazorean” being related to the nazir (a Jewish vow of consecration to God) than for any etymological connection to “Nazareth”. Matthew seems to be interpreting the term both ways, building a bridge between a biblical “prophecy” in Judges, the fact that Jesus was known as a Nazorean, and a Gospel narrative that has Jesus active in Galilee. Mountains more could be written on the topic, but I’ll leave it at that for now.
Bibliography
Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Updated Edition, Yale University Press, 1999.
David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, 1860.
M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew, SPCK, 1974.
Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, New York: Basic Books, 2005.
Andrew T. Lincoln, “Contested Paternity and Contested Readings: Jesus’ Conception in Matthew 1.18-25”, JSNT 34(3) 211–231, 2012.
Charles C. Torrey, “The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels”, Studies in the History of Religions: Presented to Crawford Howell Toy, New York: MacMillan, 1912.
