In my last post I referred to the magi, the wise men from the east who did not return to King Herod to tell him about the Christ Child. I posted the following information about them, the slaughter of the infants and other details of the Christmas story some years back, in another blog. All of it deserves to be repeated. That blog was in response to several detailed questions offered by Sam, a newsman friend who always seeks the facts.
Sam asked,
As I recall, only Matthew mentions the magi. However, he doesn’t say they are kings or how many made the journey. Popular opinion seems to have settled on 3 magi, probably because only 3 gifts are mentioned, but those were expensive gifts at the time, so several magi may have chipped in to buy them.
One of the OT prophecies that spoke about kings bringing gifts to the newborn king.
May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands render (the king) tribute; may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts! May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him! - Psa 72:10-11 ESVAfter several centuries the church became convinced that the magi were themselves kings. There is no hard evidence however. And certainly no evidence one way or another as to how many magi there were.
Next question.
Only Matthew mentions Herod’s slaughter of the innocents and reports that Mary, Joseph and Jesus fled to Egypt. Several existing records from those times chronicle many of Herod's misdeeds and murders, but from what I understand, there is no historical evidence of any massive slaughter of male infants up to 2 years of age in that period or area.
We rely strongly on the historian Josephus for the extra-biblical history of that era. Josephus wrote with a strong Jewish bias, so one would hardly expect him to discuss this event. Moreover, Matthew is a totally reliable first century document, proven in many other ways to be so. Since Herod was so paranoid about someone wanting to replace him as king, the command to murder a few infants in the nothing town of Bethlehem would hardly be noticed. This is just another instance of what happened frequently.
Next question.
Meanwhile, only Luke mentions the angels appearing to shepherds in the field to announce the birth of Jesus, which over the years has caused debate of exactly what time of year He was born. (Historical evidence seems to indicate that the early church may have picked December to compete with a pagan holiday).
No one really knows when Jesus was born. Sheep would ordinarily be penned up in December, because there's no grass and its too cold. What is known is that when Constantine recognized the Christian faith as official early in the 4th century, Christian leaders set the date to December 25. This was indeed an attempt to eclipse a popular pagan holiday in Rome (Saturnalia) that celebrated the winter solstice. Nothing wrong with that. Some have said that Dec. 25 is exactly nine months after the church celebrates the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, the celebration of Jesus incarnation in Mary's womb. The Catholic encyclopedia elaborates in this manner:
"All Christian antiquity (against all astronomical possibility) recognized the 25th of March as the actual day of Our Lord's death. The opinion that the Incarnation also took place on that date is found in the pseudo-Cyprianic work "De Pascha Computus", c. 240. It argues that the coming of Our Lord and His death must have coincided with the creation and fall of Adam. And since the world was created in spring, the Saviour was also conceived and died shortly after the equinox of spring . . ."
Of course, based upon the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, the church has followed the practice of observing Holy Week and Easter in Spring, based upon the floating Jewish Passover holiday.
Next question.
Of all the books in the New Testament, I think only Matthew and Luke mention a virgin birth.
You are correct. Those are the only two books that mention it, but they do so to indicate that it was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. In our day the virgin birth has been under serious attack, leading to the denial of Jesus' resurrection and even his divinity. As Albert Mohler writes,
"Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine; it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls."
Further, I must point out that we Lutherans emphasize that doctrine is one. To deny one part is to deny the entire teaching, especially since the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. As we are seeing, many Christian leaders now deny not only the virgin birth, but also very Gospel itself. .
Next question.
Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea to comply with a Roman census, which historians claim defies known facts about how Rome kept track of its taxpayers.
I'm going to let Lutheran Pastor Richard P. Bucher, Th.D., answer this one. He seems to have done a good job of studying the issue:
"But what of the census that Luke 2:1 speaks of? Is there any record in history, outside of the Bible, that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.
"The three censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine. For example, we know of a provincial census in Gaul that took 40 years to complete, though, admittedly, this is an extreme example.
"The only apparent difficulty with identifying the census that Luke mentions in the Christmas story with the one in 8 B.C. is, ironically, something Luke seemingly intended to clarify the dating. He tells us in 2:2 "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria." Seems simple. All we have to do is find out exactly when Quirinius was governing Syria and then we will know exactly when the census was given, right? Right. But the problem is, according to records available to us; Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7 A.D. eleven years too late!
"We know this because ancient historians have quite a bit to say about our man Quirinius. Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Dio Cassius, as well as Jewish historian Josephus all wrote of him.3 His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (d. 21 A.D.), who was what the Romans called a "new man." This means that he came to hold his political office on the basis of his own merits rather than by family tradition. It was through his military conquests in Cilicia and elsewhere that Quirinius had been exalted by the emperor to the holding of governor in Syria in 6-7 A.D.
"The key to solving this alleged puzzle, is in the phrase "first census" in the sentence, 'This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing Syria.' What does Luke mean by a first census? One theory offered is that the Greek word for 'first' (prote) is sometimes translated 'prior to' or 'before'. This is a viable solution because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, 'This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria.'"
Enough history! Study yourself what Dr. Bucher writes. He—and I—favor the above explanation. There is historical evidence.
As to Sam's final comment about the Holy Family returning to Nazareth, the Coptic Church has a long and ancient history of the Holy Family residing in Egypt.
We are not told by Matthew how long the Holy Family remained in Egypt, nor are we given any geographic information about their journey. Even the Nile River is not mentioned. Although the expanded tradition is largely based on written accounts, physical sites that have been popularly associated with the Holy Family also play an important role in supplying further details. Sites made sacred because they are believed to have been touched by the Holy Family often feature unusual physical features. Some of these include miraculous hand or foot prints of the Christ child, unusually shaped trees thought to have sheltered the Virgin, or healing springs where the family quenched their thirst. . . etc.I thank Sam for raising these questions. I pray they help everyone to rejoice in the celebration of Jesus' birth.
