The world has never been the same since the birth of one man, Jesus of Nazareth.  Very little is known of Jesus’ earlier family existence, particularly of his parents, Mary and Joseph.  Interestingly, only two of the four canonical Gospels recount Jesus’ family origins before he began his teachings.  The Gospel of Mark, believed by scholars to be the first Gospel to be written, commences at Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist, when Jesus was an adult.  Although John begins his Gospel by describing how the eternal Word transforms itself into flesh on earth, he does not delve into Jesus’ childhood or infancy.  Therefore, if one wishes to read narratives regarding Jesus’ birth from the New Testament, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are the only places one can turn to.  When asked about the birth of Jesus, most people recall the coming of the magi who are guided by a star and bear gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to the infant Jesus.  Others remember shepherds inspired by angels to go and pay homage to their newborn king.  While both replications are correct, one may be surprised to learn that they are not contained in both Gospels.  Luke’s account does mention any magi following a star; likewise, Matthew makes no reference to shepherds.  Although these are only minor differences, many more do exist and create major problems for scholars trying to reconcile these contrasts.  The narrative stories of Jesus’ birth may be somewhat different, yet, they do not necessarily contradict each other.  This essay endeavors to illustrate a few of the similarities and differences of each evangelist’s infancy narrative by exploring the antecedents and setting of Jesus’ birth.

        From the four canonical Gospels, very little is known concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, aside from the fact that she is pure and free from sin.  If one is interested in learning about her past, one must turn to the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of James.  This Gospel begins by explaining Mary’s birth to Anna and Joachim in their old age.  Anna becomes pregnant after she prays to God and dedicates Mary to the service of God in the temple.  Afterwards, she is pledged to Joseph at the age of twelve by her guardian, Zechariah.  The author of the Gospel says that she remains completely pure of heart and free from sin.  Thereafter, the angelic annunciation takes place and the narrative continues similar to that of Matthew and Luke, with a few “exaggerations” along the way.  Her chastity is confirmed by the “Ordeal of Jealousy” prescribed in the Book of Numbers.  Scholars believe this Gospel was written roughly around the fourth or fifth decade of the second century and its purpose was to confirm Mary’s purity and virginity, as many Christians have placed great importance on this belief.

        Although the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not agree on a few issues, both are in agreement that Jesus was born of a virgin.  “The most difficult problem posed by the infancy Gospels is that of the virginal conception.  What is at issue in the case of angels, the star and dreams is merely the mode of communication.  This is an area where the subtle dialectic of the relationships between the sign and the reality leaves room for a large range of hypotheses.”1      Moreover, Raymond E. Brown suggests that “the virginal conception was a well-known religious symbol for divine origins.  Some scholars have supported this contention by pointing to stories of virginal conceptions in pagan or world religions; others have found instances of virginal conception in the traditions of Judaism.”2  The virginal conception is lacking in the Gospel of John, as the author focuses on a different theological approach based on a profound doctrine of pre-existence.  Furthermore, the virginal conception is also lacking in the Pauline writings.  In Galatians, Paul writes: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, under the law”  (Gal 4:4).  It may have been appropriate in this passage to have written “born under a virgin,” however, Paul’s Christology does not parallel that of Matthew and Luke’s.  “All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’” (Mt 1:22-23).  The main argument skeptics use against Mary’s virginal conception lies within this passage.  The author of the Gospel of Matthew persistently shows how Jesus is a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy; the previous quotation is fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.  Matthew quotes from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish bible, which he also prefers when quoting other prophecies as well.  The Greek version reads, “A virgin (parthenos) shall conceive and bear a son” whereas the original Hebrew version reads, “A young woman (almah) shall conceive and bear a son” (Isa 7:14).  Thus, the Septuagint is a mistranslation and there is no way of knowing if Matthew was aware of this or not.  Skeptics believe that Matthew has based his entire narrative on this mistranslation and is therefore false; however, responses regarding this issue have been made.  Firstly, a Hebrew copyist may have thought that his version was a mistake to him, as a virgin cannot conceive a child.  Thus, the copyist may have changed the word from parthenos to almah as it would make more sense.  Moreover, the author of the Gospel of Matthew may have depended on his own translation from Hebrew into Greek.  Lastly, it is of equal importance to note that Luke also mentions the virginal conception and the author of the Gospel does not show any signs of having borrowed the idea from Isaiah at all.  Furthermore, there are no indications that Luke coincided with Matthew when each author was writing his own account, thus, Luke could not have borrowed the idea from Matthew.  Therefore, the two narrative accounts only provide reasonable textual proof of the virginal conception and also provide evidence that the early church was not in agreement on a consistent position regarding the issue.  Matthew and Luke tracing Jesus’ Davidic ancestry through Joseph and not Mary acts as confirmation.

Join now!

        Both infancy narratives in the New Testament attempt to trace Jesus’ ancestry; Matthew claims the lineage dates back to Abraham, whereas Luke believes his descent is rooted even earlier, to the age of Adam.  Here, the evangelists are trying to prove “the importance of the genealogy…which is to claim the royal descent of Jesus through Joseph who is in any case the legal father.”3  By accomplishing this, the authors make Joseph an important figure and “present Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of David and the Son of Abraham, the fulfillment of  Jewish messianic expectations.”4  It has been known for ...

This is a preview of the whole essay