The factuality of the infancy gospels

Here we are not tying the discussion to any one writer, since so many are inclined to question, in varying degrees, the factual character of Matt. 1-2 and Luke 1-2.³³⁰ However, the material belongs

in Appendix III, since, with only one exception, we can find the needed answers rather easily.

Basic to the discussion is the question of the genre of these chapters. Many think it is midrash-others do not. But there is much disagreement on how to define the genre of midrash.³³¹ There is a tendency to think midrash is a rather loose genre, with a core of history, but with developments and

additions made on the basis of the Old Testament. However, to say the genre of the Infancy Gospels is midrash is not the same as to say they contain no historical facts; again, authors differ.

So we will review the chief specific claims against factuality of these chapters.

First, it has been remarked that in Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph; in Luke, the angel speaks to Mary. Of course, if we can fit together the two accounts-and we will do that-there is no real

problem. Each Gospel, probably drawing on different sources, reports part of the events.

Second, some say the accounts cannot be reconciled since in Luke, it seems that the Holy Family has residence in Bethlehem. Luke 2:11 speaks of the Magi as entering the house, whereas in Matthew, Jesus is born in a stable. However, the difficulty is only apparent. After Jesus was born in the stable, it is not at all possible to think Joseph would continue to stay there during the early days

of the life of Jesus. No, most naturally, he would find a house as soon as possible. So the Magi found them there. The fact that Herod ordered a slaughter of infants up to two years of age clearly

implies that some time had elapsed.

More basic is the question of fitting together the accounts of Matthew and Luke as a whole. First there are some basic facts that are found in both: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in the reign of Herod, of Mary, a virgin engaged to Joseph who was of the house of David. An angel announces His

coming birth, which is to be through the Holy Spirit. The name Jesus is imposed before His birth, and He is identified as Savior; The Holy Family finally settles in Nazareth.

The center of the problem is about the fact that Luke makes no mention of a visit of Magi, or a flight into Egypt, followed by a return to Nazareth. Matthew on the other hand does have these events, but does not mention a presentation in the Temple, or a "census." Luke 2:39 says: "And when they

had completed all these things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their town of Nazareth." So Luke goes directly from the presentation in the temple to a return to

Nazareth.

First, we notice that Luke and Matthew probably had different sources. Second, Luke does not say

"right away" or any such thing. Further, it is widely thought that Luke may telescope two events, e.g., some think there were two council meetings in Jerusalem. Joseph Fitzmyer, speaking of Acts, says "many of Luke's accounts are known to be telescoped résumés."³³² We admit such a possibility readily. So there is no problem in admitting that Luke, for his own reasons, or because of the nature

of his sources, may have telescoped events here, i.e., may have decided not to mention the flight into Egypt.

However, it is not difficult to see the sequence of events, combining the accounts of both Matthew and Luke: Mary and Joseph come from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the enrollment. They find no place suitable for the birth of Jesus, and hence, temporarily go to a stable. However, as soon as possible, naturally, Joseph would find a house to use. It is there that the Magi find them. However,

some time has already elapsed since the birth of Jesus, during which He is circumcised on the eighth day, and presented in the temple. Some time after that, the Magi arrive, and are warned in a

dream to go back by another way. Joseph is warned to flee to Egypt and he does so; later he returns to Nazareth. So there is no difficulty in finding a way to fit the events together.

The only considerable difficulty is about the "census" at the time of the birth of Jesus. No record is found outside the Gospel of a census at the time supposed for the birth of Jesus, which is commonly

dated about 6-4 B.C. The suggestion is even made that the mention of the census is only a "literary device" to connect Jesus to Bethlehem, city of David.

But there really is a solution, found in some remarkable new research by E. L. Martin, in The Birth of Christ Recalculated.³³³ It has received very favorable comments and reviews from Classicists,

Biblical archeologists, and astronomers. For example, Greece and Rome, The Journal of the Classical Association (Oxford University Press, April, 1981) said, "New light has been thrown on the

date of the nativity.... Martin tackles the problems convincingly." Professor lack Finegan, noted writer on biblical archaeology, said, "Your arguments are very persuasive." The Los Angeles Times of Dec. 10, 1980 reported, "at least 10 planetariums in the United States, Germany and Greece are

revising their shows this Christmas season to correspond with the dating theories of Ernest Martin.... Scores of others are considering a shift." Among these is the noted Griffith Observatory.

Astronomers are especially interested because the whole question of the date of the birth of Christ turns on an astronomical point. Flavius Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, reports that Herod died soon after a lunar eclipse.³³⁴ Of course, astronomers can tell us when such eclipses would be seen in Palestine around the time of the birth of Christ. They give us these dates: March 23, 5 B.C.;

Sept. 15, 5 B.C.; March 13, 4 B.C.; and Jan. 10, 1 B.C. Calculations of the birth of Christ have usually been based on the eclipses of 5 and 4 B.C. Martin, however, shows by multiple arguments

that the eclipse in question must have been on Jan. 10, 1 B.C.³³⁵ One reason is that the events Josephus says came between the eclipse and the Passover (also mentioned by Josephus) simply

could not fit within the days available on the eclipses of March 13, 4 B.C. and March 23, 5 B.C.

Other grave difficulties rule out Sept. 15, 5 B.C. But the eclipse of January 10, 1 B.C. fits readily and accords with several other facts, which we will now enumerate.

But first, we follow up: If it was the eclipse of 1 B.C., then the difficulty about the census vanishes.

For we know that there was an enrollment-Luke's apographe is broad enough to cover that easily-to take an oath of allegiance to Augustus before he received the prestigious title of Father of his Country in 2 B.C. A Greek inscription has been found in Paphlagonia (N. Asia Minor) which tells us that in 3 B.C. all the people in the land took an oath of loyalty to Augustus.³³⁶ Further, the Armenian

historian Moses of Khorene reports that in 3 B.C. such an oath was taken there.³³⁷ Also, the 4th century A.D. historian Orosius reports that in 3 B.C. "all the peoples of the great nations took oath in this one name of Caesar."³³⁸ So the lost "census" has been found, and turns out to be a different kind of enrollment, independently attested by several ancient sources, as taking place in 3 B.C.

Jesus then would have been born in 3 B.C.

Tertullian in his Adversus Iudaeos also tells us that Jesus was born in the 41st year of the empire of Augustus.³³⁹ Some have been puzzled over this method of dating. But there were several ways of dating the power of Augustus. Tertullian seems to date it from 43 B.C., the time when Augustus,

along with Anthony and Lepidus, received supreme power by a special grant as the Second Triumvirate. This is a less usual way of counting, but it gives us the right date, 3 B.C. We can see Tertullian means that year because in the same passage he adds that Augustus had power 28 years

after the death of Cleopatra, who died in 30 B.C., which would give 2 B.C. as the birth of Jesus.

Further, Tertullian says Augustus lived 15 years after the birth of Christ. Augustus died in 14 A.D.

So, if Tertullian subtracted 15 from 14 A.D. (neglecting the fact that there would have been two years 1 B.C. and A.D.), he would reach 2 B.C. So we get 3 or 2 B.C. as the date of the birth of

Christ.

Also, Classicists have had great difficulty with the events of an obscure decade, 6 B.C. to 4 A.D.³⁴⁰ The chief problem is that we know Augustus received his 15th acclamation for a major victory,

achieved by one of his generals, around this time. If we pick 4 B.C. for the War of Varus in Palestine, which came after the death of Herod, we cannot find a victory to warrant the acclamation,

which came in 1 A.D. But if we make the birth of Christ 3 B.C., then the war would be running at about the needed time, and finished in 1 A.D.

One difficulty remains: Luke says Quirinius was in charge at the time of the enrollment. But we know the governors of Judea during the period, and Quirinius is not listed. Again a very plausible solution is at hand. Quirinius fought an important war against the Homonadenses, in Cilicla, north of

Judea. The probable date of the war is about 5-3 B.C.³⁴¹ Now if the regular governor of Judea, whoever he may have been, knew in advance-everyone did-of the coming great honor to Augustus,

probably early in 2 B.C., he would likely have gone to Rome for obvious reasons. He would then need someone to mind the store for him in his absence. Quirinius, a very competent general, was at

hand, as we have seen. So he conducted the enrollment for the regular governor. Luke uses the word hegemoneuein for the role of Quirinius. It is not the noun governor, but a verb which can mean to be governor, but is really a generic word, capable of meaning a different kind of leader.

And of course, Quirinius, in our reconstruction, would really be acting governor.

The honor to Augustus was a very great one. Suetonius tells us that there was first "a universal movement" by the people to give him that honor.³⁴² The people sent a deputation to him at Antium.

He at first declined. Then a crowd again offered it to him outside the Theater. Finally the Senate followed suit. Augustus was deeply moved: "Weeping, Augustus answered-I quote his exact words as I did for Messala-Fathers of the Senate, finally I have achieved my highest amibition."³⁴³ With a

"universal movement" of the people starting the process, the coming of the honor must have been widely known long in advance, long enough to induce the governor of Judaea to come to Rome to

take part in the festivities, and, of course, to strengthen his own situation.

The honor was so great that the next emperor, Tiberius, declined to accept it.³⁴⁴

We see, then, that there are no real obstacles to taking the Infancy Gospels as at least basically factual.

We can recall too the way Vatican II spoke of these events, as we explained in Appendix II.2.c.

We recall too the evidence we saw in Chapter 9 of new research showing the meticulous care Luke took in translating Hebrew documents. The evidence we summarized runs the same in these two

chapters of Luke as it does in the rest of his Gospel.³⁴⁵

END NOTES