translation of the Jewish scriptures that were composed in Hebrew. The Hebrew text that reads, “an ’amah (young woman) shall conceive and bear a son,” is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word, parthenos, “virgin.” ’Amah has no connotation of virginity, but refers to a young woman, either married or unmarried, and in the context of Isaiah unquestionably refers to a young married woman. The problem for this writer with Matthew’s use of scripture is precisely this: he searches scripture to find passages that he believes support his thesis concerning Jesus, takes them out of context, and embodies them with a meaning inappropriate to their original context and intention. Perhaps his use of this particular passage from Isaiah and its application to the birth of Jesus is excusable, since the Septuagint translation of ’amah by parthenos is so appropriate for what he is attempting to do. But the question rises whether it is ever necessary or appropriate to defend or rationalize the acts of God. The Apostle Paul, citing Isaiah 40.13 “Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”, properly rejects this approach. There is always a flaw in the method of using proof texts to demonstrate a particular thesis, even though this particular example has resulted in a veritable superstructure supporting the supernatural birth of Jesus and his divinity as well. The question remains whether such proof can be found or whether the proof offered is authentic and necessary.
The Role of Dreams in Matthew
According to the author of Matthew, the information about the conception by the Holy Spirit is communicated to Joseph by an angel of the Lord who appears in a dream. It is apparent that the central figure in the birth stories in this gospel is Joseph, not Mary. This is only one of four revelations to Joseph communicated to him by an angel through a dream. The angel of the Lord directs him to flee to Egypt to save the young child from the attempt of Herod to take his life (2.12), informs him of the death of Herod and bids him return to the land of Israel (2.19), and sends him to Galilee to circumvent the threat from Archelaus (2.22). In addition, the wise men are warned in a dream not to return to Herod (2.12). These references point up the mythological character of the birth narratives in this gospel. Myth does not denote that these stories are untrue. Myth is a way of portraying historical events according to the world view of the people and of the time. Just as the world view of the Yahwist was mythological—his three tiered universe with the heavens above, the earth beneath, and the water under the earth, so the world view of the gospel writers is mythological with their references to angels and divine guidance through dreams.
But there is something more here that needs to be noted. Why do dreams play such a prominent role in this account? Immediately it becomes apparent that the writer is steeped in the ancient religious traditions of Israel. Who is Joseph, referred to as the father of Jesus in verse 16, “Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born”? Does not this call to mind the patriarch Joseph? Was not the distinguishing feature of the patriarch his dreams and his ability to interpret them? Is it not probable then that the name Joseph, known as the husband of Mary and father of Jesus, stimulated the author of our gospel to create by analogy a similar pattern of divine guidance for his leading character in these stories?
The Use of Mythology
There is no supporting documentation for the visit by the wise men, the murder of the children at Bethlehem by Herod, or the sojourn in Egypt of the child Jesus. The visit by the wise men, or magi, is particularly instructive as to the use of mythology and burgeoning of tradition in the early community. The three become Oriental kings identified as Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar by a later generation. The appearance of the star in the east was the signal to the three, members of a hereditary priestly class among the ancient Medes and Persians, of the birth of a king. The connection is not made, but it should be remembered that the Jews had been ruled by the Persians from approximately B.C.E. 539 when Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon to their overthrow by Alexander the Great, the founder of the vast Macedonian Empire, in B.C.E. 331. Perhaps there were bits of Jewish lore concerning a coming king that had filtered down to Persian society and to this priestly class of magi during this long period of association. Astrology, initiated and practiced in ancient Mesopotamia from the time of the Assyrians who emerged approximately at the time of David’s kingdom, had developed into a system of beliefs that the heavenly bodies exercised a strong influence over the lives and affairs of the human family.
The appeal of astrology is still strong in our twenty-first century in the lives of the many who religiously consult their astrological tables, although there is not an iota of evidence to support the claims made by practitioners. We are so mesmerized and awed by Matthew’s account of the appearance of the star in the east to guide the magi that we have lost our critical acumen to evaluate the myth. There have been numerous efforts by modern astronomers to equate the star in the east with a conjunction of planets that supposedly occurred at the time of or soon after the birth of Jesus. The problem is that we have no fixed date for his birth, inasmuch as our gospel records are incomplete and our present calendar that identifies the year C.E. 1 as the year of his birth is evidently in error, as noted elsewhere. But a larger problem is the account that says the magi sighted the star in the east and traveled west, or more correctly southwest, to Jerusalem. Evidently the star disappeared for a time, for they had to make inquiries as to the place of the birth of the king of the Jews. When they resumed their journey, “the star that they had seen in the east went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. . . . and going into the house they saw the child. . . .” (Matt. 2.9, 11). Modern astronomy would find it difficult indeed to verify such phenomena, for the movement of stars and/or planets has never been known from observation to be so precise a directive.
Other Motifs in the Matthean Account
There are a number of motifs that play a role in this formulation of the birth narratives by our author in addition to the “Joseph motif” and the “angel and dream motif” referred to above. There is the motif of the wicked king who seeks to destroy the infant Jesus who is destined to be the deliverer of his people from oppression just as the wicked Pharaoh sought to destroy the infant Moses who was born to deliver his people from Egypt. There is the motif of the descent into and the coming forth from Egypt of the infant Jesus, essentially a recapitulation of the history of God’s people in Egypt and the history of salvation. There is the motif of the continuing threat in the land of promise, so that the child Jesus as Israel of old must take refuge in an isolated locale until he comes of age. The reader must judge whether these are authentic accounts of historical events or whether the author has set forth in these constructions his faith that the inscrutable purpose of God will come to fulfillment despite the peril and threat that constantly confronts the young and endangered Christian community. These are themes and motifs created and developed by a highly fertile and imaginative mind. They become prosaic and dull when subjected to our proclivity to read them as factual and literal accounts of reality. They are expressions of the worshipping community and to be cherished not as history but as interpretation of the event of salvation, an event so marvelous that it is impossible to depict the reality and the fullness of it in human language.
The Lukan Account
Luke’s account is to be read in a similar fashion. When compared to Matthew’s account, the narratives in Matthew and Luke are mostly divergent and conflicting in their detail. The points of agreement are limited to the reference to the conception and birth of a virgin, the names of the principal characters—Joseph, Mary, and Jesus—a birth in Bethlehem but under quite different and irreconcilable circumstances, and a growing up in Nazareth. To sharpen the contrast between the two accounts, let it be noted that according to Matthew Joseph and Mary are residents of Bethlehem and it may be presumed that Jesus is born in their home, whereas in Luke’s account their residence is in Nazareth and they only come to Bethlehem to fulfill the conditions of a census that has been appointed by Caesar Augustus. Thus it is only by chance or by divine guidance that Jesus is born in a stable in Bethlehem, which in itself is an assumption since the only reference is that the newborn baby was “laid in a manger.” If these stories were not side by side in our scripture, it might even create a problem of identity; are the two authors speaking of the conception and birth of the same person?
