The Resurrection of Lazarus, Questions Galore

The Anointing Stories in the Synoptic Gospels Raise Questions Concerning the Historicity of the Raising of Lazarus Story in the Fourth Gospel

According to the Gospels Jesus was anointed with (or received) perfume numerous times in his life. Are all the tales true? Are any of them symbolic, legendary? At his birth Jesus allegedly received a visit from an unknown number of wealthy star gazers (was it two? three? more than three? Matthew does not say) who traveled far to deliver gifts of “frankincense and myrrh” (not to mention an unknown quantity of “gold”), at least thatʼs what the Gospel of Matthew states, none of the other Gospels happen to mention such a tale.

Heavenly Extortion. According to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus warned the world that they had better show charity to Jesus' missionary disciples, or else.

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me”
Matt 25:37-40

Most people assume that the author of Matt 25:37-40 was teaching universal love for children, the poor, etc., based on a love of Jesus. However the author of Matt 25 had first century concerns in mind, apocalyptic concerns, and was thinking less about everyone loving each other indiscriminately and more about what the world owed the followers of Jesus who were attempting to spread the message to repent because the kingdom of God and Son of Man was coming soon. The “little ones” or “least of these” were the disciples Jesus had sent out to preach a soon coming apocalypse:

Matthew 10:42 New International Version
And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones Who Is My Disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.

Matthew 18:6 New International Version
If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matthew 18:10 New International Version
See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Matthew 25:40 New International Version
The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these Brothers And Sisters Of Mine, you did for me.’

If you mistreat the missionaries whom Jesus sent out youʼll be judged negatively by God. Theologian A. J. Mattill Jr., himself a universalist minister, pointed this out in his paper, “What the world owes the church: A breakthrough in the understanding of the parable of the sheep and the goats,” The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 71 (April 1971) 8-17. I have a copy of Mattillʼs paper but include a condensed description below from New Testament Abstracts, Vol. 15, #861 :

The parable of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46), which may be regarded as a midrash on Matthew 10:40-42; 18:5; and 16:27, is about what the world owes the disciples and/or the church. People are judged by the king on the basis of how they have treated the lordʼs missionaries. Those who have not received the disciples hospitably are condemned, for they have not done it unto the Lord (25:45,46). Those who have given food, drink, and clothing to the missionary disciples, those who have visited the disciples when they were sick and in prison, will be declared righteous (25:37) and will inherit the kingdom prepared for them (25:34).

Hospitality to the disciples is hospitality to Jesus: “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me” (10:40). This theme repeats itself in 25:35-40: “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren you did it to me” (25:40). Thus in both discourse and parable Jesus expresses the close ontological union between himself and his church (cf. Acts 9:4). This dwelling of the believer in Christ and of Christ in the believer is forcefully stated in Matthew 10:32: “Every one therefore who shall confess in me before men, in him will I also confess my Father who is in heaven” (American Standard Version, margin).

Hospitality to disciples will be rewarded on the day of judgment: In 10:41, 42 there are three references to the reward of eternal life granted in the judgment to those who were kind to Jesusʼ messengers, a reward granted by Jesus himself (10:32). Similarly, in the Great Assize the righteous will go away into eternal life (25:32-40, 46b), as directed by the Son of Man (25:34).

Inhospitality to disciples will be punished on the day of judgment: The fate of those Jews inhospitable to the missionaries is even worse than the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (10:14, 15). Jesus himself will repudiate them (10:33). Jesus also warns his agents not to “fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (10:28). Likewise in the parable those not hospitable to the disciples are condemned (25:32, 33, 41-46a), and the Son of Man says: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food …” (25:41,42).

Hospitality to the disciples is expected from the world: The twelve are to take no gold, nor silver, nor copper, nor a staff (10:9,10) but, being on a house-to-house mission, are to be absolutely dependent upon the hospitality of the people along their journey, living with those who are worthy (10:11-13). Note, too, the stress in 10:40-42 upon receiving the twelve, prophets, righteous men, and disciples. The parable presupposes this same receptivity by the populace: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (25:35).

Hospitality to hungry disciples is demonstrated by giving them food to eat: Jesus advised his disciples that “the laborer deserves his food” (10:10). It is precisely the same in the parable: “I was hungry and you gave me food” (25:35).

Hospitality to thirsty disciples is demonstrated by giving them water to drink: “And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward” (10:42). This promise points directly to 25:35: “I was thirsty and you gave me drink.”

Hospitality to ill-clad disciples is demonstrated by giving them clothes to wear: The twelve proceed with no shoes and without a change of undergarments (10:10), so necessary for cleanliness in a hot climate, and thus will soon need clothing from friends, even apart from persecution. This need is also reflected in the parable: “I was naked and you clothed me” (25:36).

---

Also note this more recent paper in Novum Testamentum

Abstract
The Matthean community consists of two groups which are symbolized by “sheep” and “goats” respectively. In Matt. 25:31-46 the “least of these” are not the poor in general, but those who are in the mission fields sent out by the Matthean community. Determining that the unsuccessful result of the missionary works was due to the insufficient support from the community, Matthew attempts to elicit a strong concern among them. Hence, the Matthean Jesus, who identifies with the missionary team at the brink of collapse, encourages the sheep group to maximize its ongoing support for the least, and warns the goats group not to be indifferent to them.
Source: Das Weltgericht und die Matthäische Gemeinde by Joong Suk Suh, Novum Testamentum, Brill Academic Publishers, Volume 48, Number 3 / June, 2006, Pages 217-233

---

To put the above in its wider apocalyptic context, note that Jesusʼ plea for “moral perfectionism” directly resulted from his mistaken belief that Godʼs judgment day was imminent, as pointed out by Robert M. Price:

Jesusʼ eschatology accounts for the radical perfectionism of the application of his values, e.g., “Love your enemies…bless those who curse you…if struck on one cheek, turn the other…lay not up for yourself treasure on earth [do not save money!]…Whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either [leaving you naked, since those two items summed up the clothing worn by ancient Near Easterners]…give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back [!], etc.” I canʼt buy Lutherʼs way out, i.e., that Jesus was showing us how we canʼt obey these values, in order to prepare us for the gospel of justification by faith! Sorry, Luther! The text repeatedly says, “Do this to reach the kingdom, do this or be punished.” I am thinking foremost of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is depicted as saying:

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets … Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheepʼs clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits … Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire [apocalyptic speech]. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, “‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; Depart From Me, You Who Practice Lawlessness.” Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house [apocalyptic speech]; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. [Matt. 7: 12-27]

Most perfectionists are neurotics: was Jesus? Not if he predicated perfectionism as the only way to live due to the nearness of Godʼs judgment day! Then it would seem feasible!

Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), a preacherʼs son who grew to become Americaʼs greatest freethinker, reached a similar conclusion:

That generation [of Jesusʼ day] was not to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth should melt with fervent heat… Filled with the thought of coming change, he [Jesus] insisted that there was but one important thing, and that was for each man to save his soul. He should care nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow of the coming disaster…He endeavored, as it is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the dead bury the dead, and follow him. We know now - if we know anything that Jesus was mistaken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he was greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing that the end was near, he said, “Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed.” It was in view of the destruction of the world that he called the attention of his disciples to the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of his raiment. [The parable even has an appropriately apocalyptic ending: “The grass of the field that is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace!” Mat 6:30] Having made this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we cannot now say that he was perfect in knowledge.

For more on all the false predictions found throughout the New Testament of a soon coming Son of Man, or the Lord, see The Lowdown on Godʼs Showdown.

---

Another Often Misinterpreted Gospel is John. Is it Primarily About How Much Christians Should Love Outsiders? Neighbors, Enemies? Or Does It Focus on In-Group Love of Believer for Believer?

The Gospel of John consists of “anti-language” say Social Scientists. It is not a Gospel about “loving oneʼs neighbor/enemies,” and in fact mentions neither. Instead it is about indoctrination, or in the idiom of cults, “love bombing,” and maintaining in-group thinking.

Questions Raised by Stories of Jesus' Infancy in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke

Jonathan Pearce has composed a book titled, The Nativity: A Critical Examination in which he asks questions like these (to which I have added comments):

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must:

• Special plead that the virgin birth story found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is true while every other virgin birth stories concocted for hundreds of years before or after that one are mere shades of the true Christian story.

• Deny that “virgin” in Isaiah is a mistranslation (Translators of Isaiah have disagreed for ages over whether the word refers literally to a “virgin” or a “young woman” whom I grant is presumably young enough to be a virgin, though some uncertainty remains given that we are dealing with nothing but a single word with no other qualifiers given in the Isa. story. The point that I take away when I read the original prophecy in Isaiah is that it was speaking about a perfectly normal act of “conception” of a young woman of virginal age, perhaps during her first time having sex. There is no overshadowing of divine light, no announcement that the child is conceived directly by God with no manʼs assistance. And the sign to Ahaz involves not the manner of the childʼs conception but the state in which nearby kingdoms will be when the child grows to a certain age. So the author of the Gospels is lifting only a tiny fraction out of the story in Isa, and stretching it into a story about a “virgin birth.” That is stretching things a bit Iʼd say.--ETB)

• Give a plausible explanation of from whence the male genome of Jesus came from and how this allowed him to be “fully man.”

• Be able to render the two genealogies fully coherent without the explanation being contrived or ad hoc.

• Believe that the genealogies are bona fide and not just tools to try to prove Jesusʼ Davidic and Messianic prophecy-fulfilling heritage.

• Be able to explain the inconsistency of the two accounts in contradicting each other as to where Jesus lived before the birth (without the explanation being contrived or ad hoc).

• Somehow be able to contrive an explanation whereby Herod and Quirinius could be alive concurrently, despite all the evidence contrary to this point.

• Believe that a client kingdom under Herod could and would order a census under Roman dictate. This would be the only time in history this would have happened.

• Find it plausible that people would return, and find precedent for other occurrences of people returning, to their ancestral homes for a census (at an arbitrary number of generations before).

• Give a probable explanation as to how a Galilean man was needed at a census in another judicial area, Judea.

• Give a plausible reason as to why Mary was required at the census (by the censors or by Joseph).

• Give a plausible explanation as to why Mary would make that 80 mile journey on donkey or on foot whilst heavily pregnant, and why Joseph would be happy to let her do that.

• Believe that Joseph could afford to take anywhere from a month to two years off work.

• Believe that the prophecies referred to Nazareth and not something else.

• Believe that the magi were not simply a theological tool derived from the Book of Daniel.

• Believe that Herod (and his scribes and priests) was not acting entirely out of character and implausibly in not knowing the prophecies predicting Jesus, and not accompanying the magi three hours down the road.

• Believe that the magi werenʼt also merely a mechanism to supply Herod with an opportunity to get involved in the story and thus fulfill even more prophecies.

• Believe that the magi were also not a reinterpretation of the Balaam narrative from the Old Testament, despite there being clear evidence to the contrary.

• Believe that a star could lead some magi from the East to Jerusalem and then to Bethlehem where it rested over an individual house (and only a couple of magi followed it, not Herod, or his men, or any of the inhabitants of Jerusalem took to following this amazing moving star that lay so low in the sky it could rest over a particular house? Would have made things rather easy for Herodʼs men to follow such a star and kill the baby Jesus early on, or at least try to do so.--ETB)

• Believe that the shepherds were not merely midrashic and theological tools used by Luke.

• Believe that there is (and provide it) a reasonable explanation as to why each Gospel provides different first witnesses (shepherds and magi) without any mention of the other witnesses.

• Believe that, despite an absence of evidence and the realization that it is clearly a remodeling of an Old Testament narrative, Mosesʼ birth tale, the Massacre of the Innocents actually happened.

• Believe that Herod would care enough about his rule long after his death to chase after a baby and murder many other innocent babies, a notion that runs contrary to evidence.

• Believe that God would allow other innocent babies to die as a result of the birth of Jesus.

• Believe that the Flight to and from Egypt was not just a remodeling of an Old Testament narrative in order to give Jesus theological gravitas, a second Moses.

• Give a plausible explanation as to why the two accounts contradict each other so obviously as to where Jesus and family went after his birth.

• Explain the disappearance of the shepherds and magi, who had seen the most incredible sights of their lives, and why they are never heard from again despite being the perfect spokespeople for this newfound religion.

• Provide a plausible explanation as to why Jesusʼ own family do not think he is the Messiah in Mark, given the events of the nativity accounts in later Gospels like Matthew and Luke.

Firstly, there is a serious lack of mention of Bethlehem in any other writing in the New Testament. Although absence of evidence is often claimed (by Christians) as not being evidence of absence, it is hard to deny the force of the lack of mention of Bethlehem. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are the only places in which it is mentioned. Neither Mark, John, and importantly, nor Paul corroborate the claims of the other two. It gets slightly more problematic for those who are pro- Bethlehem in that it seems that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Paul is often understood to be writing, in his letters, to people very interested in the Jewishness of Jesus. If he knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and of the Davidic line, you would have thought this would have been a superb mechanism in which Paul could have argued this. Sadly, this evidence is lacking.

The Gospel of Mark seems to indicate that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Mark makes no mention, other than Jesus being from Nazareth, of any other place that Jesus could be associated with in the whole of his Gospel. Mark 1:9 declares, “Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Throughout the Gospel, when visiting elsewhere, such as Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28), he is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. More damaging, perhaps, is the idea in Mark 6 where he returns to Nazareth and this is referred to as his “hometown” (6:1). This is compounded as later in that same episode Mark has Jesus himself saying (6:4), “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.” There seems to be little dispute in Markʼs writing that Jesus hailed from Nazareth. In common vernacular and biblical terms, it is no coincidence that Jesus is known famously as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and not ‘Jesus of Bethlehem’! It seems to me that it is more probable that Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth before the Gospels were written so that this title could not realistically be dropped. But since the writers needed Jesus to be born in Bethlehem it was a case of either getting him (i.e. Joseph and Mary) from there to Bethlehem and back again or living in Bethlehem at the birth and then moving to Nazareth.

Luckily, the Gospels have both options. Nothing like covering all the bases! And this leads us onto another issue: Luke and Matthew differ on where Joseph and Mary lived before the birth of Jesus. As Luke 2:3-5 says:

• And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

Clearly, Luke has Jesus living in Nazareth and having to go to Bethlehem as a result of it being “his own city” (more on this later) and having to attend a census (more on this later, too!). Matthew, on the other hand, has this to say (Matthew 1-2):

• Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows:… Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea…

So, although there is no explicit explanation of where they lived, it is implied by the manner in which the account is given. However, the admission that they had not lived in Nazareth before comes in Matthew 3:21-23 after the family have lived in Egypt for what was probably a couple of years:

• So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

This spells out a clear contradiction between Matthew and Luke — they could not agree on where Joseph and Mary lived before the birth. Both writers had to harmonize two points: that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem, and that he had to live in Nazareth. And they both do this in completely different ways. Luke uses a census and a need to go to the town of oneʼs ancestors, whilst Matthew uses an escape to Egypt and the notion that Bethlehem was too dangerous to live in, and the need to fulfill the ‘Nazarene’ prophecy. This is one of those contradictions that, to me, is fairly terminal for the narratives as a whole. Such a fundamental difference, and such dichotomous mechanisms for getting Jesus from A to B, shows at least one, and probably both, accounts to be indefensibly spurious. As Foster, (2007, p. 60) says:

• The discrepancies [between Luke and Matthew] are real and dramatic. That means that it cannot be argued with a straight face that Matthew and Luke collaborated or had a common source.

This implies that many apologists donʼt argue their harmonizations with a straight face. With the mounting evidence, I can see why. Apologists do, however, use various methods to get themselves out of this corner.

To begin with, apologists will tackle the absence of evidence claim (from the writings of John, Mark and Paul) as not proving anything, per se. Furthermore, it is claimed that Paul would be trying to play down the Jewishness of Jesus in dealing with the many Gentiles in the growing religion. The absence from the other two Gospels is often put down to the notion that writers simply did not have the same source(s) as Matthew and Luke, or themselves did not want to play to Jesusʼ Jewishness. 1 Foster (2007) p. 60

Another tack is that just because Bethlehem offers itself as a very important theological device in validating Jesusʼ authentic Davidic and Messianic qualities does not mean that it is not true that he was born there. Maybe that theological detail isnʼt true, or maybe it is, but that does not, by default, make the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem false. Well, no, but on balance of evidence, the probability is very low. Taking into account the many inconsistencies between the Gospels, and the places in which there is at least one of the accounts telling a falsity, it does push the evidence towards the improbable end of the spectrum.

Foster analogizes a liberal approach to Matthewʼs use of prophecy fulfillment by using Matthew 21. In this account, since the prophet Zechariah in the Old Testament had prophesied that the king enter Jerusalem on a donkey and a colt, Matthew sees that this must be fulfilled by Jesus, and as a result (Matthew 21:6-7):

• The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats.

However, Mark and Luke see this as nonsense and have him only riding on a donkey. Foster argues that it is obvious that Matthew is factually wrong here, since Jesus wouldnʼt have been riding two animals at once, but does it mean he didnʼt enter Jerusalem at all? Foster says a resounding no (p. 61-62).

The problem with his analogy is this. Firstly, he shows corroborating evidence that Matthewʼs factual claims (at least of prophecy fulfillment) are simply wrong. They didnʼt happen as was claimed. Matthew is playing fast and loose with facts here; as mentioned before, where else is he doing this where it is not so obvious? Secondly, and more importantly, it is a false analogy. The point is not to say whether Jesus was born at all (as in, entered Jerusalem in Matthew 21), but to say he was not born in the way claimed (as in, he did not enter Jerusalem in the way claimed).

Thus Foster fails in defending the birth narratives in the way intended. What Matthewʼs inconsistent writing does seem to evidence is that Jesus was not born in the way claimed by Matthew (and Luke). It seems Jesus was not born a virgin, did not have a genealogy routed through David, was not born in Bethlehem and so on. What we could have left is this: Jesus was born. But many proponents of the narratives of Jesusʼ birth (narratives) appear to be oblivious to this.

Other attempts to harmonize the problematic accounts include claiming that Matthew didnʼt explicitly say that Bethlehem was always their home, and that they could have lived elsewhere before. This is possible to grant, but the fact that they then decided to move to Nazareth after Egypt clearly shows that they hadnʼt lived in Nazareth before. So the contradiction with Luke remains unanswered.

For more, Click here to read the book!

On the Creativity of the Author of Matthew's Gospel, Especially When it Comes to Tales of Jesus' Infancy

There are several ways to view the infancy stories (stories that only appear in two out of four NT gospels, not in Paul, nor in the ostensibly earliest Gospel, Mark). Among the different ways to view the stories there are…

1. Attempts to harmonize them. But if a lawyer in courtroom responded with possible ways to try and harmonize every discrepancy between witnesses, claiming that every witness he called to the stand was giving inerrant/inspired testimony, who would take such a scenario seriously?

2. Stressing what points both stories share. Not an inerrantist approach but seeking commonalities between stories. A reasonable method, but in the case of comparing Gospel stories we are dealing with ancient documents rather than first-person flesh and blood witnesses who can be cross examined. So we have to begin by asking where such stories originated. From oral sources? Were the oral sources sharing eyewitness testimony or hypotheses and attempts to aggrandize a cult-hero, i.e. stories crafted to answer questions raised by pious believers in a pious manner, or in a manner that could claim one-up-manship over Roman tales involving their own divine emperor, or even one-up-man-ship over Israelite heroes and miracle-working prophets of the past, so as to attract more followers in either case? And how can we trace possible changes in such tales during their oral period of transmission? How many people were telling such stories, exchanging them, before the stories reached the ear of the Gospel writer? And what might the Gospel writer himself have changed, added or subtracted? How many separate stories from how many people might have been combined to form the ones in Matthew and/or Luke? Itʼs also possible that conscious or unconscious exaggerations could have been involved, as well as spiritual insights being relayed and concretizing in story form (midrash), as well as new interpretations of OT passages being used to color or even generate aspects of a story (pesher). In the case of the Gospels we have only the written product, we donʼt know what went on before the writing or even during it.

   But judging by the Gospel of Matthew it appears like the author was taking Deuteronomy 18:15-18 (“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses]…”) even more seriously than Mark had, especially by adding a nativity story that involved the following parallels between Jesus and Moses:

   • Just as Pharaoh (the King of Egypt ca. 1300 BC) killed all the male babies of the Hebrews, and only Moses was saved (Exod 1:22-2:10), so also Herod (the King of Israel at the birth of Jesus) killed all the male babies in Bethlehem, and only Jesus was saved (Matt 2:13-18).

   • When Mosesʼ life was in danger he fled from Egypt to Israel, but returned to Egypt after many years (Exod 2:15; 7:6-7); when Jesusʼ life was in danger, his parents took the reverse itinerary: from Israel to Egypt and years later returned to Israel (Matt 2:13-21). And that was not merely a reverse itinerary, but it also enabled the author to fit in another parallel between Jesus and Moses: Just as the Old Testament Joseph went to Egypt to free/save his people, the father of Jesus, also named Joseph, went to Egypt to keep Jesus safe, so that Jesus could “come out of Egypt” like Moses had with his people. In both cases this led to peopleʼs freedom/salvation, as depicted by the authors of both the Moses and the Jesus story.

   • Also interesting, we do not read in earlier works like the Pauline letters or the Gospel of Mark the name of Jesusʼ father. The Gospel of Mark only mentions a “Joseph” who buried Jesus. So the name of Jesusʼ father first appears in the Gospel of Matthew, a Gospel soaked in parallels to Moses and the Exodus story. The Gospel of Matthew even says that Josephʼs father was Jacob (Heli in Lukeʼs Gospel) just as the Old Testament Josephʼs father was Jacob, again pointing to a possibly exaggerated emphasis found in the Gospel of Matthew more than all the rest, that the life of Jesus paralleled that of Moses.

   • Also only in Matthew is Jesus depicted delivering a long sermon “on the mount.” Just as Moses goes up to a mountain to receive the Law (incl. the Ten Commandments) from God (Exod 19:3), so also Jesus goes up to a mountain to give a new Law (incl. the Nine Beatitudes) to the people (Matt 5:1).

   • Just as Moses was thought to have written the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, Deut), so also the teaching of Jesus is contained in five speeches or extended “discourses” in Matthew (ch. 5–7, 10, 13, 18, 23–25).

   • The Matthean Jesus also explicitly upholds the law of Moses, rather than abolishing it (5:17-20; 22:35-40; etc.)

   • See R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Gundry is an Evangelical who was voted out of the Evangelical Theological Society for suggesting that the nativity stories in Matthew were inspired midrash rather than inerrant history, but who was later invited back to speak at ETS events. Gundry has composed interesting works of theology and biblical studies besides his commentary. Also see, Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), more on that below in the ADDITIONAL INFORMATION section.

     But getting back to the topic at hand, which is “How does one view Matthewʼs nativity story?” If itʼs true that Matthew was attempting to write a Gospel that specifically emphasized parallels between Jesus and Moses (emphasizing such parallels to a greater extent than the author of Mark, Luke or John did), then it is interesting that the six parallels above are found first in Matthew, or only in Matthew, including major elements of such parallels being found in Matthewʼs nativity story. Are those elements historical? How could one be certain they were when it appears to be this particular Gospel authorʼs intent precisely to demonstrate such parallels?

3. Granted that one can find points of overlap between the Matthean and Lukan nativity stories, one cannot help but notice that Matthew and Luke also diverge most from each other in exactly those places where neither could follow the Markan outline, which was precisely in their nativity and post-resurrection sightings stories, both of which Mark lacked. How much historical memory remains in the nativity stories and post-resurrection-sighting stories if those are among the stories that diverge the most between Matthew and Luke? Doesnʼt that recognition raise questions?

4. One might add that the stories at both the beginning and the end of Matthewʼs Gospel have raised eyebrows even among conservative Evangelicals like Gundry and Licona. Licona pointed out that there are good historical critical reasons to doubt the historicity of the tale found only in Matthew of the “raising of many saints.”

5. The biblical scholar Mark Goodacre suggests that perhaps the Gospel stories grew over time in a linear fashion with Mark being the earliest, then Matthew, and then Luke which contains re-edits and new material in its retelling of both the nativity and post-resurrection sightings. Goodacre suggests reasons why the Lukan author might have decided not to go with the Mathean “magi” and the “child slaughter” story and “trip to Egypt,” and also why the Lukan author might have decided not to go with the first post-resurrection sighting being in Galilee as Matthew stated. Goodacre discusses such things in his works and in his wonderful free podcast, NTPod.

---

Additional Information

• Mark Goodacreʼs NTPod shows dealing with the birth narratives.

• The Case Against Q website

• Professor Philip A. Harland and his podcast, Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, Podcast 2.4: Matthewʼs portrait of Jesus - New Moses (part 1)

• Dale C. Allison, Jr. supports the idea of Jesus as a Moses figure in his book The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, asserting that Matthew uses special words and even particular grammatical patterns found in Mosesʼ books, including a narrative structure that is reflective of Exodus. Of course, as Allison points out, most great figures in Jewish history were compared to Moses at some point and in some way, but Matthew seems to do it at great length. In addition to the above examples, Allison cites the narratives of Jesusʼ birth and infancy, his temptation by Satan, his transfiguration and the appointment of his successor as places in the Gospel where the similarities between the two emerge. An example of a place where he feels a direct parallel to Moses is the infancy story, where Jesus narrowly escapes death from a madman ruler named Herod (Matt. 2:12-16), just as Moses also barely escaped imminent death himself when Pharoh ordered all Hebrew children to be killed (Ex. 1:22 - 2:3).

  Detractors have pointed out that many of Matthewʼs references to Moses have in fact come from Mark and Q, but details and changes to these texts made by Matthew are indicative of his intentions. While the Sermon on the Mount is clearly from Q (as it is a set of sayings, most of which also appear in Luke), Lukeʼs version is the Sermon on the Plain. Itʼs a small change that Matthew has made, but a telling one that he has made it on a mountain, in order to parallel the aforementioned story of Moses bringing the Commandments down from the mountain (Ex. 34:29). [Though if Goodacre is right and there is no Q that would also explain how a Christian pro-Torah author of the Gospel of Matthew came to put together sermons that loosely paralleled teachings of Moses.]
  (Source).

---

Jesus as Moses and More

Another Device Employed by the Author of Matthew to Portray Jesus as Israel

Jesus as Israel: The Typological Structure of Matthewʼs Gospel by Peter J. Leithart

Matthew, in contrast to the other synoptics, gathers Jesusʼ teaching into large “blocks” of teaching… That this was a deliberate device [employed by the author of the Gospel of Matthew] is evident from the repetition of the concluding (or “transitional”) formula (7:28-29; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1-2). Repetition as a structuring device is common in the Old Testament,¹⁵ and given Matthewʼs evident immersion in the Hebrew Scriptures it is entirely plausible that he would have borrowed this literary device, just as he cites Old Testament texts as prophetic types of Jesus. That Matthew employed this formula five times to mark off five sections of teaching also provides evidence that Matthew intended the structure of his gospel to underscore his theme that Jesus is the fulfillment of Torah (and of all the Scriptures).¹⁶ The value of Baconʼs five-discourse structure is most evident when integrated with Matthewʼs typological hermeneutic, as examined in Dale Allisonʼs richly detailed, deeply researched, and theoretically sophisticated study, The New Moses. Allisonʼs book is not only stimulating, but utterly compelling. Typology is clearly central to Matthewʼs presentation of Jesus…

Allison finds allusions to various passages in Deuteronomy in the closing section of the Sermon on the Mount,²¹ suggests that the “transitional formula” first used in 7:28-29 echoes Deut 31:1, 24; 32:45,²² and notes verbal and conceptual links between Matt 9:35-38 and Num 27:15-17 (“sheep without a shepherd”) that point to connections between Jesusʼ commissioning of the twelve and Mosesʼ commissioning of Joshua (Matt 10:1-3 with Num 27:18).²³ Matthew 10:1-3 in fact conflates Num 27:18 with Num 13:1. From the latter it borrows “sending” (αποστελον in both the LXX and Matthew), while from the former it borrows conferral of authority (LXX: δοξα; Matthew: εξουσια). The twelve disciples-made-apostles are “spies” who see that the land can be conquered despite Satanʼs presence and mastery; they are also “Joshuas” in their authority and faithfulness.

These hints suggest the possibility that the “Pentateuchal” section of Matthewʼs gospel concludes somewhere near chapter 10, and from that point we move from a Moses/Exodus typology into a Joshua/conquest typology. Given the fact that Joshua is himself typologically compared to Moses,²⁴ it is not surprising that traces of Mosaic typology continue into chapter 10, but these traces become faint because Matthew has brought another typology to the forefront and allowed the Mosaic typology to recede to the background.²⁵ As Matthewʼs story moves on, he makes similar transitions at various points, moving sequentially through the history of Israel with the five discourses, and the surrounding narrative, marking out major periods of Israelʼs history.²⁶ This suggestion may not mark an epochal advance in Matthean studies, but it accounts more fully for the structure of Matthew than any alternative proposals yet made.²⁷

The early chapters of Matthew provide prima facie evidence of the plausibility of this scheme. First, the sequence of events in Matthew 1-7 closely mimics the sequence of the Pentateuch. Matthew begins his gospel with an overt quotation from the LXX of Genesis: He is writing the βιβλοσ γενεσεωσ of Jesus, just as Genesis records the βιβλοσ γενεσεωσ of heaven and earth (Gen 2:4) and of Adam (5:1). Matthew follows with a genealogy, like the numerous genealogies of Genesis (4:16-26; 5:1-32; 10:1-32; 11:10-32; 36:1-43),²⁸ recounts a miraculous birth (cf. Isaac, Jacob) to a dreamer named Joseph.²⁹ Israel has become an Egypt, her king the child-slaying Herod, and Jesus has to escape “by night” (cf. Exod 12:30) to safety, an event that Matthew sees as a fulfillment of a passage from Hosea that speaks of the exodus (Matt 2:15; Hos. 11:1). After his watercrossing in baptism (3:13-17), He is tempted in the wilderness for forty days, where He quotes from passages referring to Israelʼs forty-year sojourn (4:1-11). Ascending a mountain, He instructs His disciples in the righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5-7), laying before Israel the choice between life and prosperity, death and disaster, a choice between maintaining their “house” and seeing it dismantled by a rising “river” (cf. Isa 8).³⁰

Schematically, the opening chapters of Matthew follow the first two Books of Moses as follows:

• 1:1: Book of genesis = Gen 2:4; 5:1

• 1:1-17: son of Abraham = Gen 12-26

• 1:18-25: Joseph the dreamer = Gen 37

• 2:1-12: Magi = Nations to Egypt for Joseph; promise to Abe

• 2:13-15: Herod kills children = Exod 1-2: Pharaoh kills children

• 2:14: Jesus rescued, flees = Exod 2: Moses rescued, flees

• 2:19-23: Jesus returns to Israel = Exod 3-4: Moses returns to Egypt

• 3:1-12: John announces judgment = Exod 5-12: Moses/Aaron bring judgment

• 3:13-17: Jesus passes through waters = Exod 16: exodus

• 4:1-11: temptation in wilderness = Exod 17-19: travel to Sinai

• 4:18-22: Jesus calls disciples = Exod 18: Moses appoints rulers chs. 5-7 Sinai and the giving of Torah

Much of this is old hat, and so self-evident that even scholars who resist typological interpretation have a hard time ignoring it. What is often missed, however, is what this implies about the logic of Matthewʼs typology. Though there are certainly “Mosaic” dimensions to the typology throughout these chapters, the typological thread that provides the continuity is overwhelmingly Jesus-as-Israel.31 Matthew 1:1-17 does not mention Moses, and its allusions to Genesis draw on the pre-Mosaic history of the people. Jesus is “son of Abraham” (1:1), who is the father of Israel (Rom. 4:1) and not the father of Moses. Though Allison is probably right to discern some hints of Mosaic typology in Matthewʼs birth narrative, the emphasis on Josephʼs role keeps the later chapters of Genesis firmly in mind. Mosaic typology becomes stronger in chapter 2, but even here Jesus is as much Israel as Moses — He does not lead a people out of Egypt-Israel, but is an infant taken, like the surviving firstborn sons of Israel, out of the land.32 All Israel is baptized in the sea (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-4), and all Israel is tempted in the wilderness. When He teaches from the mountain, He is surely a Mosaic figure, but He is also much more, for He does not deliver words from Yahweh but speaks with an apparently underived authority (7:29).

Not only does Matthew repeatedly treat Jesus as the embodiment of the nation, but the sequence of Matthewʼs narrative is following the order of Old Testament history quite exactly. A few pericopes, to be sure, have are more loosely connected to this typological sequence (e.g., Johnʼs ministry, 3:1-13), but all the sections that are evidently typological are arranged in the same order they are found in the Old Testament. Matthew 1-7 is the most obviously typological section of his gospel, and if in this section Matthew follows a Jesus-as-Israel typology that is, in its general outlines, chronologically arranged, it is plausible that he would continue that typology straight through.

For Footnotes & More, See

Jesus as Israel: The Typological Structure of Matthewʼs Gospel
Peter J. Leithart

---

Bishop Spong discusses how Matthew divided his work into 5 books “in a deliberate attempt to model the form of the 5 books of the Jewish Torah,” thus employing “the rabbinical device of numbers in his teaching,” which is seen elsewhere in Matthew as well:

• 3 temptations (Matt. 4)
• 3 examples of righteousness (Matt. 6:1-18)
• 3 prohibitions (6:19; 7:6)
• 3 injunctions (7:7-20)
• 3 healings together (8:1-15)
• 3 miracles demonstrating the authority of Jesus (8:23; 9:8)
• 3 restorations (9:18-24)
• 3 ‘fear nots’ (10:26, 28, 31)
• 3 types of persons unworthy of Jesus (10:37, 38)
• 3 sayings about little ones (18:6, 10, 14)
• 3 questions in the Passion Narrative (22:15-40)
• 3 prayers in Gethsemane (26:36-46)
• 3 denials of Peter (26:57-75)
• 3 questions of Pilate (27:15-26)
• 7 woes (23:13)
• 7 demons could repossess an exorcised man (12:43-45)
• Asked a 70 times 7 fold pardon (18:21-22)
• referred to 7 brethren (22:25)
• 7 loaves (15:34)
• 7 baskets of fragments (15:37)

Spong adds that zeal appears to have overwhelmed the rationality of the author of the Gospel of Matthew:

[I]n Matthewʼs eagerness to fashion his story to his Jewish audience, he violated the meaning of his Hebrew text time after time. The enigmatic text in Isa. 11:1, for instance, that referred to a branch out of Jesse could hardly be used to undergird the fact that Jesus went to live in Nazareth, yet that appears to be the way Matthew used it… The details of the crucifixion and burial were not predicted by Psalm 22 so much as they were deliberately shaped by that psalm. The servant passage of Isaiah, the son of man passages of Ezekiel and Daniel, the triumphant passage from Zechariah, the shepherd and Bethlehem passage from Micah all became vital and valuable tools for understanding and interpreting Jesus in the Jewish context. In each instance Matthew altered the original meanings of these texts to suit his own needs. His zeal overwhelmed his rationality. (p. 164)

A greater than Moses …

Thus, explains Spong, Moses, Solomon, the Temple and Jonah became models of the story, also.

If Jews believed Moses had been the greatest religious leader in history, then Jesus must be portrayed as one greater than Moses. This was the guide to the narrating of the Sermon on the Mount.

If Jews believed Solomon had been the wisest man in history, then Jesusʼ wisdom needed to be greater than Solomonʼs. (Matt. 12:42)

If the Temple was believed to have been the place where God made his divine presence known to mankind, then Jesus had to be portrayed in terms of the Temple. One greater than the Temple had come. (Matt. 12:6)

If Jonah stood in Jewish folklore as one who had died and come to life again through the innards of a fish, then the story of Jesus who entered death and conquered it must be told in terms of Jonah. One greater than Jonah had come. (Matt. 12:41)

---

Thus concludes some of the evidence that the Gospel of Matthew might be the product of greater creativity than conservative Evangelicals are wont to admit.

The Author of the Gospel of Matthew Copied the Markan Passion Tale, Changing It In Ways to Fit a Newly Added Tale About "Many Saints Being Raised." The Changes Are Obvious and Telling Concerning the Author's Ingenuity Rather Than Demonstrating Historical Reporting

Which Gospel was written first, Mark or Matthew? Markan priority is far more widely accepted and has grown in acceptance even among members of the Evangelical Theological Society—see Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels.

Case in point. The story of the “raising of many saints” (which is found only in the Gospel of Matthew) makes greater sense if Markan priority is true rather than Matthean priority.

Mark and Matthewʼs stories about Jesusʼ execution right up to the message delivered at the empty tomb are nearly identical. They both depict the same actions and messages of Jesus on the cross, and they both share the same message delivered at the empty tomb. None of the other Gospels share as much as Mark and Matthew do in the above sections. But for all that they share, Matthewʼs tale contains some spectacular bits that Mark lacks. Nor are those spectacular bits found in any other Gospel—they include the earthquake at Jesusʼ death and the raising of many saints who enter the holy city and show themselves to many, guards at Jesusʼ tomb, an earthquake at Jesusʼ tomb, an angel that descends from heaven and sits on top of the rock outside the tomb, and Jewish bribery of the guards. Mark contains none of that, no first earthquake that opens many tombs, no resurrected saints, no guards at Jesusʼ tomb, no second earthquake, no angel descending from heaven and sitting on top of the rock outside the tomb, no Jewish bribery of the guards. (Mark simply says Jesusʼ tomb was empty and a young man was found inside it.) Nor do the other Gospels mention those spectacular bits in Matthew that Mark lacks. In fact all the Gospels lack mention of a single earthquake, let alone two of them. On the other hand, as I already stated, Jesusʼ last words and actions, and the message delivered at the empty tomb (“He has gone before you to Galilee, there you will see him”) are nearly identical in both Mark and Matthew. So it appears Matthew added a lot to a prior Markan story, many of the added bits being of a spectacular nature and corroborated neither by Mark nor by other Gospel writers.

One also canʼt help but notice that following Matthewʼs story of the earthquake that cracks open tombs followed by the raising of many saints, Matthew says:

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, Surely he was the Son of God! (NIV)

But Mark says:

And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, Surely this man was the Son of God! (NIV)

So Matthew depicts the centurion along with those with him all “seeing” the “earthquake and all that had happened,” and “they were terrified.” But Mark depicts only the centurion standing “there in front of Jesus,” reacting to “his cry” and seeing “how he died.”

So it looks like Matthew inserted a lot of spectacular bits into his version of the Markan story, even altering what the centurion was looking at when he exclaimed Jesus to be “the Son of God.” Indeed, Matthew seems to have the centurion “and those with him” exclaiming in unison, “Surely he was the Son of God.”

Such additions and edits in Matthew point toward Mark being a more likely primary source.

For further evidence of the priority of Mark one could compare the type and number of miracle tales found in both Mark and Matthew. See this fascinating discussion by a biblioblogger.