We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
From the second article of the Nicene Creed
* * *
It is probable that what we consider myths today were considered fact in ancient times by a vast majority of people. Virgin births or a woman being impregnated by a god was always considered an exception to rule of human conception, but not unheard of. The resulting offspring was considered semi-divine and could ultimately ascend to the status of full divinity, once his or her mortal coil was shrugged off and with the approval of the other gods and goddesses.
In Jesus' case, the New Testament gives us two versions of Jesus' birth, one from the perspective of his mother, Mary's, found in Luke's Gospel and one from his nominal father, Joseph's point of view, found in Matthew's Gospel. There are some interesting nuances to both stories that insist Jesus, by virtue of Joseph being Mary's husband, is a direct descendent of King David; an important factor in his being the Messiah and having claim to the Davidic throne. As such, both Gospels offer the reader two genealogies of Jesus that make a point of Jesus' claim of being a direct descendent of David through Joseph's lineage, while making the point that Joseph is not Jesus' biological father but rather his nominal father by virtue of having married Jesus' biological mother. (See Matthew 1 and Luke 3).
Jewish myths are often cast from within a genealogical perspective to offer authenticity, in the sense that the myth involves a real person chosen by God for a divine purpose. In Jesus' case this becomes a bit murky; in that, Jospeh is disclaimed as having any sexual relationship with Mary prior to conception and birth of Jesus. This is where the mythic imagination is needed.
Why Jesus' birth was cast as a myth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is a bit of a mystery.
Couldn't Jesus have been declared God's Son as the biological offspring of Joseph?
Couldn't we have accepted Jesus as the Messiah and God's Son without the insistence that Mary had no previous sexual encounter with a male that resulted in her becoming pregnant with Jesus?
Both the Gospels of Mark and John make no mention of Jesus's "virgin" birth, leaving room for Joseph to be Jesus' biological father. As noted in past posts, Paul's epistles make no mention of Jesus' birth other than saying he was born a Jew by virtue of being "born of woman, born under the law." (Galatians 4:4).
Why bother with creating a mythic story surrounding Jesus' birth?
One probable reason is to provide continuity between prophecy and the person of Jesus. That Jesus was born of a virgin is based on Isaiah 7:14, "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son..." That Jesus was born in Bethlehem is based on Micah 5:2, "But you Bethlehem... out you will a ruler come..." That Joseph had to escape to Egypt with Mary and Jesus due to Herod's plot to kill Jesus is based on Hosea 11:1 ..."out of Egypt I have called my son."
Let's consider the "virgin" birth of Jesus. Most biblical scholars today tell us that the Hebrew word for virgin in Isaiah did not imply a female who never had sexual intercourse, but rather was in reference to a young girl. What is overlooked in that reference is no mention that God would be directly involved in the child's conception, only that a young girl will conceive and bear a son and will call his name Immanuel.
Why did both Matthew and Luke decide to cast Jesus' birth as the result of a divinely wrought pregnancy?
To answer that question, we need to consider the times in which the authors of these two Gospels lived and the audiences they were writing for. Miraculous births would catch peoples' attention. Nothing would point to the divine nature of someone than that person being declared the offspring of God; especially, in the cosmopolitan world of the polytheistic Roman Empire where such accounts would have drawn the attention of both gentiles and Hellenized Jews who would have been aware of such stories within other religions at the time. There would have been an openness to the possibility that such a miracle could occur within a Jewish context as the prophecy of Isaiah was interpreted by both Matthew and Luke to lend credibility to such speculation.
That angels appear to both Jospeh and Mary in these gospels lends mythic continuity between these stories. The presence of Gabriel adds to the mythology, as Gabriel is first cited as a mythic figure the mythical Hebrew stories of Daniel and Enoch. The archangel Gabriel originated in the Zoroastrian religion of ancient Persia. Gabriel serves as God's messenger to humankind. Interestingly, Gabriel is not mentioned in prophecies that were promulgated prior to the Babylonian captivity, appearing in Jewish scripture after the Jewish exiles were subject to Persian rule following the fall of Babylon. The presence of Gabriel lends also lends apocalyptic and eschatological significance to the story of Jesus' virgin birth.
Was Jesus' conception asexual?
Anything sexual in Judaism is associated with uncleanliness and impurity that required special practices to ensure cleanliness. To ensure that Jesus was completely sinless or spotless required that conception was as pure as could be. God does not have sexual intercourse with Mary. Instead, the Holy Spirit hovers over her, much like the Spirit of God hovered over creation and in this sense Jesus becomes a new creation forming in Mary's womb. This is unlike the sexual trysts between mortal humans and Greek and Roman gods. Theologically, Mary was also considered pure and spotless herself as a virgin (and in Roman Catholic doctrine was herself immaculately conceived; being free from original sin). That also begs the question, if God could cause Mary to be sinless, why not Jesus? It also suggests that Jesus' conception occurred before Mary experienced menstruation which would indicate that she was very young indeed when she conceived.
In Luke's account, Mary is portrayed as frightened by Gabriel's visitation and the thought of becoming pregnant and questioning how such an occurrence would take place since she had not "known" a man. Gabriel assures her of a sexless union that will result in her having a son who she is to name Jesus.
What about Joseph?
Meanwhile, in the Gospel of Matthew, we have Joseph's reaction to the news that Mary is pregnant with a child whose conception he was not involved with, although he was betrothed to her. That he was betrothed to Mary brings a bit of drama to the whole story of Jesus' conception. Apparently, it isn't till after he married Mary, that he found out that she was pregnant with a child that wasn't his. That they did not engage in premarital sex places Joseph in a quandary. Knowing that he is not the father of this child led him to conclude he must find a way to quietly get Mary out of his life through a divorce. He did not have to accuse her of adultery to divorce her. In fact, under Jewish law he did not have to give a reason for a divorce other than he no longer wanted to be married to her.
Enter an angel (Gabriel?) who informs Jospeh in a dream that the child is bearing was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This is all the proof that Joseph needs to keep Mary as his wife. Given the patriarchal nature and religious rigidity of Judaism and the culture in which Joseph lived, the notion of getting a divorce without making a legal case for it or out of it could be understood as face-saving on Joseph's part, but reacting to a strong dream without question, though possible, is not very probable and lends credibility to the mythic nature of this story.
In reality, it is more likely that Joseph and Mary were simply in love and married, as there is certain evidence for this on a genetic basis. To be a direct descendant of King David by bloodline would have meant that Jesus was Joseph's biological son. Even in the first century direct descendent meant someone could trace a biological link to someone in the past. We can play with that by saying God was able to give Jesus' Joseph's genes without the need for sexual intercourse because all thing are possible with God.
Yes, but why would God bother when God just as easily could have made Joseph's son God's Son simply by declaring him as such as in Jesus' baptism? That was sufficient for the author of the Gospel of Mark. After all, Jesus once stated that he could make children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9). The issue that requires a mythic interpretation of Jesus' divinely initiated conception is purity, i.e. sexual purity; as in, an asexual conception in order for Jesus to be the sinless, spotless Lamb of God described in the Gospel of John.
Where was Jesus born?
Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Unlike the Gospel of Luke, however, the Gospel of Matthew places Joseph's actual home in Bethlehem and it is there he had taken Mary after he married her and there, in their home, that Jesus was born. To be clear, in Matthew there is no mention of Caesar Augustus, a census requiring a trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem, an inn with no rooms available, a stable in which Jesus was born or a manger in which he was laid.
What about angels appearing to shepherds in their fields, guarding their flocks during the night?
This is where the mythic imagination of the author of Luke's gospel is evident. Obviously, apart from Luke's account there does not exist any corroborating story to confirm what Luke's gospel is saying. The heavens opening up and an angel announcing that Jesus is born and a large number of angels begin singing, "Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth, goodwill toward men" serves a mythic purpose, giving meaning to birth of Jesus as something to take note of; that there is more to this birth of baby boy than meets the eye. Beyond that there is more to Jesus than meets the eye. The angels don't wake up the sleeping residents of Bethlehem, rather they make their announcement to vigilant shepherds keeping watch over their flocks and it is their vigilance that should catch our attention and their willingness to believe the message of the angels and leave their flock momentarily to see this miraculous baby.
Who are the wise men that follow the star to Bethlehem?
In Matthew's gospel there is no mention of angels making a grand appearance to shepherds at night. An angel approaches Jospeh in his dreams, but who come to see this miraculous baby is what the King James Version of the Bible identify as wise men. Matthew doesn't give an exact number of how many. That we have settled on three is due to the gifts they brought; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. In the original Greek texts, these wise men were referred to as μάγος (magos) or magi. They were not kings, but rather part of a priestly caste associated with (you guessed it) Zoroastrianism. They were also considered astrologers whose supposed study of the stars led them to identify a movement in the stars that signified the birth of a king and a particular star that ultimately would lead them to Bethlehem. There is no need to say whether this star was an asteroid or some like phenomenon. This is a mythic rendering of Jesus' birth.
The author of Matthew was more concerned with casting Jesus' birth as a fulfillment of Judaism's prophetic scriptures than the author of Luke's gospel. Although there is no specific prophecy regarding magi coming, there is a prophesy in Isaiah 60:1-6 of Kings bearing gold and frankincense. The Psalms also mention "kings and nations bowing down before him" with "him" referring to a messiah.
If Jesus' was born in Joseph's home at Bethlehem, how did he end up living in Nazareth of Galilee?
How Jesus ends up being in Nazareth is because King Herod learns of these magi coming into his realm in search of king. According to Matthew, Herod was wary of anyone who might challenge his throne. Accordingly, once he found out about a baby boy being born in Bethlehem who was to be king, he reported orders that all children between newly born and two years of age be killed. There is no proof that such a thing actually occurred, although historians would not have put it past Herod to do such a horrible thing. Once again what lends it be a mythic element is the likelihood that Matthew was using such a story to connect it to a prophecy in Jeremiah (31:15) "Rachel weeping for her children...".
According to Matthew, Joseph is told in a dream to take both Mary and Jesus and flee into Egypt. The journey to Egypt is also attached to prophecy fulfillment, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." (Hosea 11:1). Of course, none of these interpretations can be specifically linked to the birth of Jesus. God calling his son out of Egypt most likely would have been interpreted and is interpreted in Judaism as Israel. That Jesus spent some of his early childhood in Egypt is possible, as there was a large community of Jews living in Alexandria and if there was political turmoil in Judah at the time of Jesus' birth, Joseph may have taken his family beyond the reach of Herod for a period of time. Was there a reason for Joseph needing to leave Judah other than being told in a dream to do so? If Jospeh was a known direct descendant of King David and Herod had gotten wind of it, it is possible that Herod would be searching for anyone who might make a claim on his throne and have the ability to raise an army against him. All of this is speculation and while the possibility exists that there may have been legitimate reasons for Joseph heading off to Egypt and then resettling in Nazareth of Galilee strikes me as a more mythic reason for doing so as result of Jesus' birth.
Matthew gives a reason for Jospeh heading towards Nazareth as a new home and for setting up shop as a carpenter is again associated with a prophecy, "He will be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23). The problem with this prophecy is that there is no Old Testament scripture where it is found. There is a number of speculative possibilities regarding the fact there is no known source to this prophecy. My own thought on this is that this may be mythic overkill; in that, the author of Matthew was trying to make everything concerning Jesus' life associated with prophecy and needed a story-line to get him from Bethlehem to Nazareth. These dramatic events are totally absent in the Gospel of Luke.
Who are Simeon and Anna in the Gospel of Luke?
In Luke's Gospel one is given to believe that everything started in Nazareth and had Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem because that Joseph's ancestral home to be taxed and then returned to Nazareth. In Luke, things normalize after Jesus' birth. Jesus is circumcised and named Jesus after the eighth day and he is taken to the Temple to be presented by Joseph and Mary as their firstborn male child. We are given to believe that by this time they found a home or place to stay in Bethlehem after Jesus was born, as they were in closer proximity to Jerusalem.
The author of Luke does not rely on fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy once Jesus is born. Instead Luke introduces us to two living prophets at the time, Simeon and Anna. Simeon is not specifically depicted as a prophet. Rather, he is depicted as a devout man upon whom the Holy Spirit rested, and likely was a priest. He is attributed as being the author of the famous liturgical hymn, the "Nunc Dimittis." Anna is depicted as a prophetess who lived in the Temple. When Joseph and Mary presented Jesus in the Temple, they took him to Simeon, who was probably a priest. Simeon takes Jesus into his arms and is the first to praise God for what he waited his entire life for, the Messiah. Then Anna approaches at the same moment and prophesied the same.
There are no other records regarding Simeon and Anna. What we know of them is what the Gospel of Luke tells us about them. That they are real people is likely and Luke's reference to them give legitimacy to his story. Luke had no idea what Simeon or Anna actually said. Luke literally uses poetic license to create "Simeon's Song," the "Nunc Dimmitis," just as he did in creating "Mary's Song," the "Magnificat," and the "Song of Zechariah," the "Benedictus."
What about Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth?
Part of the mythic story of Jesus' birth in the Gospel of Luke involves a distant cousin of Jesus, John the Baptizer, which played a role in the mythic birth of Jesus. A mythic element attached to that birth is that the original Zoroastrian angel, Gabriel, appears to Zechariah and tells him that his wife, Elizabeth, who was of an age when conception was unlike, would conceive a bear a son, who he is to name, John. As the story goes, because of his disbelief regarding Elizabeth's ability to have child Zechariah was unable to speak until John was born. At the time of naming the infant, Zechariah motions to those gathered who thought the child would be named Zechariah that he disapproved and motions for something to write on, Zechariah did as Gabriel told him to do and named the baby John, after which, he was immediately able to speak.
* * *
THE MYTHOS
The Gospel of Luke gives us a family connection between John the Baptizer and Jesus that none of the other Gospels do. Christians rarely consider the glaring fact that within the three Synoptic Gospels there are significant differences with regard to how the beginning of Jesus' story starts. In the Gospel of Matthew we are offered a perspective that focuses on Joseph's role the protector, the Holy Family mythos. On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke offers a perspective that focuses on the Mary's role as the mother of Jesus, the Mother of God mythos, and differs greatly as to other characters involved in the mythos of Jesus' birth. The Gospel of Mark offers no mythos regarding Jesus' birth.
In the Christian mind, the birth of Jesus is a mixture of both the Gospel of Matthew's and the Gospel of Lukes mythic tales. Both the tale of Jesus birth in Matthew and Luke are accepted as one tale from two perspectives thus forming the mythos of Jesus' birth. This is reflected in creche scenes around the world Mary and Joseph with Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger with with cattle, donkeys, shepherds and sheep, wise men presenting gold, frankincense, and myrrh with an angel or two hovering overhead and the star shining in the background. It has all become one piece, one story derived from two mythic interpretations.
The mythos' initial intent is to define Jesus as the son of God from the moment of his conception and birth. In the Christian mind today, is added the mystic mythos of John's Gospel; that what is laying in that manager is the Word made flesh. God's very self in God's only begotten son or the Incarnation Mythos. The Gospel of John has greatly influenced Christian understanding of Jesus' birth without mentioning any of the details found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. John presents what has come to be known as the Cosmic Christ which is outlined in the first chapter of John's Gospel. I will come back to the Gospel of John as it presents different understanding of Jesus and serves a different purpose than what one reads in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as noted in the second article of the Nicene Creed at the start of this post
In my next post, we will examine the meaning of this mythos for today's world.
Until next time, stay faithful.
