This essay analyzes Jesus' birth stories in the Bible from a conservative Christian perspective. Most Christian Fundamentalists and other Evangelicals believe that the Bible is inerrant (free of errors), and inspired by God.
This analysis differs from that of liberal Christians, who start with the belief that the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were written by fallible authors, reflecting a gradual development in theological belief in the early Christian movement.
Analyzing the birth stories of Matthew and Luke from a conservative Christian perspective assumes that:
 | There are no contradictions between the two gospels, and |
| There are no conflicts between either gospel and the historical record, unless the latter is in error. |
| The belief is that the two birth stories can be harmonized, and the apparent discrepancies resolved. |
Luke provides the more complete description of the events surrounding Christ's birth. Matthew adds some additional details. Conservative Christians believe that Jesus' birth happened exactly as described in the Bible. Liberals have pointed out some apparent discrepancies. However, logical reasons can be found to explain them.
| The Virgin Birth: This is mentioned in both Matthew and Luke. So, it must have happened. The virgin birth is not referred to in either Paul or the Gospels of Mark and John. This would appear to be simply an unexpected oversight by those two authors. Alternatively, they simply might have considered it unimportant. One would have expected all three to mention the unusual factors surrounding Jesus' conception. The reason why none of them referred to it is unknown. |
| Jesus' Genealogy: Matthew records only 42 generations from Adam to Jesus. One cannot interpret this literally, because it would result in each generation covering almost a full century. The only logical explanation is that only major ancestors were included in the list; most were not mentioned. So, when Matthew writes "A [was] the father of B," he did not mean that B was literally the son of A. B might have been A's son, grandson, great grandson, great-great grandson, etc. The term "father" has to be interpreted loosely. |
| The Nathan/Solomon conflict: Matthew says that Jesus was descended from Solomon; Luke says that Jesus was descended from David's other son, Nathan. Both Matthew and Luke could be true, if we realize that Matthew traced Christ's descent to Joseph, and interpret Luke's genealogy as tracing it to Mary. |
| The Herod/Quirinius (Cyrenius) conflict: Matthew mentions that Jesus was born under the rule of Herod. Luke mentions that the birth happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria and Judea. But Herod died in 4 BCE, whereas Quirinius was appointed governor in 6 CE - a decade later. Perhaps this was Quirinius' second term; he might have been also appointed a decade earlier as governor. There is no evidence of this in the historical record. However, he must have had two terms in order for the Gospels to be correct. |
| The Male-only Census: Liberals have pointed out that it unreasonable to expect Mary to accompany her fiancé to Bethlehem for the census, because only males were registered. Also, she was at the end of her pregnancy. Some personal reason, not recorded in the gospels, may have forced her to take the dangerous and difficult journey together with Joseph. |
| The Christmas Star: People have speculated that the star might have been a super-nova, a comet or an unusual conjunction of planets. But Matthew 2:9 relates how the "star" stopped over the house where Jesus was living. The motions of stars, comets and planets do not stop; the revolution of the earth on its axis would make all three objects appear to rise in the east and set in the west. Thus, the "star" must have been some supernatural phenomenon - perhaps a ball of burning gas. Matthew may have referred to it as a star because that is the only word that he had available to use. |
| The Isaiah 7:14 Problem. The Hebrew text uses the word "almah" which refers to a young woman. But Matthew and Luke refer to Mary being a virgin. This is not a conflict, since an "almah" could also be a virgin. See the link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_con.htm |
You neglected to mention a most key point concerning the Isaiah 7:14 “problem,” which is really no problem at all. While it can be rightly argued that the Hebrew word “almah” may be translated as “virgin” or “young woman,” the passage specifically says in context: “The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son…” The fact that the birth is to be a sign points to something unusual about the birth. The birth could not be normal for that would not fulfill the requirement of the sign. A “young woman” conceiving would not be especially significant as a sign. For who but a young woman could conceive?
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve argued continually, it always comes down to exegesis and context. And as the renowned scholar and old time radio teacher Dr. J. Vernon Magee was notoriously fond of saying: “A text without a context is a pretext.” The dictionary defines a pretext as, “an effort or strategy intended to conceal something.” In other words, unless we consider the context of Scripture -- I mean the entire context including the historical setting -- we are, purposely or not, engaging in a strategy to conceal the teachings of the Bible. That principle is as applicable to Isaiah 7:14 and it is to the responsible interpretation of any other portion of the biblical text.
-Alex Haiken
www.JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com