In the entire New Testament there are only two authors that recount the birth narrative. The first telling is found in chapters 1 and 2 of Matthew and the second in chapters 1 and 2 of Luke. John and Mark do not make any attempt to recount the birth of their messiah at all. Paul, who was chronologically closer to Jesus than any other writer in the entire Bible, barely mentions the birth or the early life of Jesus. Peter and James speak nothing of it. The pseudonymous authors of the letters ascribed to Paul say nothing. Why?

There are some who would put forth the notion that because the majority of the writers of the New Testament are silent on the subject that they do not support it. I think that this may stretch the bounds of reason for it would mean that silence on an issue automatically means denial of truth. We can know that this is not always the case, and probably not the case here.

I think that the most likely explanation is that the immaculate conception and the birth narrative are both later developing concepts. Matthew and Luke are most likely later than Mark as it appears that they both copied from the gospel of that name and from the sayings gospel Q. Matthew is believed by many scholars to have been written sometime between 80 and 90 C.E. Luke causes some problems but is believed to have been composed between 90 C.E. and 115 C.E. In both cases the actual time of writing are probably closer to the earlier date. In either case, the first narrative of Jesus' birth is not recorded until some eight decades after the fact!

We start here with the birth narrative according to Matthew.

Matthew 1

Matthew opens up with the genealogy of Jesus which I have already detailed in another part of this study. Beyond this list is Matthew adding up how many generations it was between Abraham and the exile and the exile to the birth of "Christ". Matthew was clearly a better writer than he was a mathematician. In adding up the number of generations between Abraham and the exile Matthew wrote that there were 14 generations when in fact he only listed 13.

In the narrative section of the chapter Matthew tells us that a woman named Mary was found to be with child before she and her husband Joseph "came together". Joseph being a just man according to Matthew, put Mary away so as not to make a public example of her. As he thought on these things and was deciding what he should do, he had a dream.

In Joseph's dream the angel of the Lord came to Joseph and called him the son of David. The angel instructed Joseph to not have fear as the child which Mary carried was of the Holy Ghost. The angel told Joseph that Mary would bring forth a son and that he should name him Jesus because he shall save his people from their sins.

The angel finished his message to Joseph by saying that these things would be done in fulfillment of prophecy which said that a virgin will be pregnant and give birth to a son which will be called Emmanuel which means "God with us".

Joseph awoke from his sleep and did what the angel had told him to do. He took Mary for his wife but did not consummate the marriage until she had given birth to her firstborn son, Jesus.

CONCLUSION

Matthew does not open up his narrative on his strongest foot. The mathematical error can be overlooked as this is not a study of mathematics, but it does make a huge problem for anyone who would say that the Bible is perfect and the "Word of God".

Verse 18 tells us that Mary was found to be "with child" before she and Joseph ever "came together". Joseph locked Mary away so as not to make a public example of her and while he thought about what he should do about the situation, he was visited by the angel of God. The angel told Joseph that the child was of the Holy Spirit and would come to save HIS people from their sins. And the child would come to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah, some 700 years earlier.

I have several problems with this. The first is that Matthew wrote this gospel between 75-90 years after the events are supposed to have taken place, and as such, should not be taken as literal, or even as "gospel". The second problem is with the revelation to Joseph in a dream that his wife was pregnant with a child of the Holy Spirit. This is a recurring theme in the Old Testament and Matthew used it probably because he was so familiar with the Jewish testament. The audience for which he wrote was without a doubt a Jewish one who would also be familiar with the theme. The third problem with this passage is the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. The prophecy referred to an event that had absolutely nothing to do with a messiah or Jesus. The fourth problem is Matthew's writing that Jesus was coming to save HIS people from their sins. It seems to imply that Jesus was only intended for the Jews and no one else. We will look at these problems in more detail.

It is widely accepted by Biblical scholars today that Mark was the first gospel to have been written. There was once some contention that Matthew must have been the first gospel written as it appears first in the New Testament. It should be remembered that the order of the books in the Bible in no way indicates a chronological order. That Matthew and Luke copied huge amounts of their gospels from the previous work of Mark is the working theory for those who give Mark the earlier date. One of the main reasons that this is accepted is the amount of Mark found in the other two "synoptics". In fact, according to the NIV Study Bible, Matthew contains 91 percent of Mark and Luke 53 percent.

That Mark was written sometime after the fall of Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish War of 64-70 C.E. is almost certain. There can be seen lamentations for Jerusalem that could only have been written after it's fall and from some distance. Matthew is believed by most scholars to have been written some 10-20 years later, giving it a date of between 74-90. This means that at the earliest possible accepted date, the gospel was recorded 74 years after the actual events happened. This absolutely rules out Matthew as being written by anyone who even remotely knew Jesus of Nazareth as the average lifespan of males in this period was 45-55 years.

The problem of Joseph receiving divine information through an angel while he slept is next. This is not so much of a problem but this becomes the basis for us knowing that Jesus was the son of God. Not only was this a common theme in the Old Testament, which Matthew clearly had great knowledge of, but it was also a regular occurrence with all of the patriarchal leaders in the Five Books of Moses.

The absolutely ludicrous idea that Matthew suggests in regards to the prophecy of a virgin birth poses a huge problem for anyone who has ever read the Bible. Let's take a look at the verse in Isaiah:

Isaiah 7:14- Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This, by itself, seems like the exact thing that Matthew was trying to use as a prophecy for Jesus. And it does a pretty good job... until it is examined further.

Looking at the entire chapter 7 of Isaiah, we read the story of King Ahaz of Judah, being counseled by the "prophet" Isaiah. The nations of Syria, led by King Rezin, and Israel, led by Remaliah, had their armies marching against Jerusalem to bring war. Isaiah was told by the Lord to meet Ahaz and tell him to not worry and that everything would be OK. The Lord told Isaiah to assure Ahaz that none of the things that these two nations were planning would happen and that in fact within 65 years Ephraim (Israel) would be broken and it would not be a country anymore.

In verse 10 we see that the Lord spoke directly to Ahaz. He told Ahaz to ask the Lord for a sign either in the depth or in the height above. Ahaz simply refused to ask God saying that he would not tempt the Lord, nor "weary his God". So God made the statement in verse 14 about a virgin bringing forth a child. Here we run into a problem.

The most immediate problem is that of translation. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'betulah'. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah is 'almah', and it means 'young woman'. That a young woman would have a baby is not so amazing as a virgin birth. The common Christian argument is that a young woman at this time would have been a virgin if she was at all virtuous, and they assume that Mary was, but there is nothing at all that backs this up in the Bible.

The next problem for Matthew's story is that this could not at all have had anything to do with Jesus. If we were to stop reading Isaiah at verse 14 there might be a case for this signifying a messianic prophecy. But the chapter continues leaving Matthew's statement seeming rather silly. Verse 15 goes on to say that the child (Immanuel) would eat butter and honey so that he would know to refuse evil and choose good. God goes on to say that before the child knew to refuse the evil and choose the good that the land that Ahaz abhorrest would be forsaken of both her kings. The chapter goes on but none of it is relevant to Matthew and his statement of fulfilled prophecy.

Why would Jesus, who is supposed to be God, need to eat butter and honey to know to choose good over evil? He wouldn't. Why would Isaiah's prediction of Jesus' birth some 700 years later have any relevance on Ahaz's plight with Israel and Syria? It didn't. What would Ahaz have thought had he been told that this sign was not going to come until long after he had died? He probably would have been rather upset. But... none of this is the case. The prophecy is not a prophecy and thus Matthew was wrong about the virgin birth being any kind of fulfillment of prophecy.

The simple fact is that this was nothing more than Isaiah trying to comfort his king. So, who was Isaiah talking about? It is more than likely that Isaiah was speaking about a woman in his own time, possibly his own wife, giving birth. Moving forward in Isaiah to 8:3 we read that Isaiah "went in to the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son."

Just as a note. The verses in Isaiah are a prophecy. Isaiah was writing that the outcome of the upcoming battle would be in Ahaz's favor and that Judah would be victorious. It seems that as far as predicting the future went Isaiah was not much better than Matthew because not even that is correct. In II Chronicles 28:5 we are told that - ' Wherefore the Lord his (Ahaz') God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter.' I guess Isaiah was not a very good prophet.

The last problem I have with this chapter is not really a big one, but it may serve as a problem for Paul of Tarsus. Verse 21 tells us that Jesus was coming to save HIS people from their sins. As Jesus was born of a Jewish mother, he was a Jew according to Jewish law. If he were coming to save HIS people from their sins it would mean that he was coming to save just the Jews and not the gentiles. Anyone who is at all familiar with Paul's work will know that he led the mission to convert the gentiles and as such was doing so outside of the purpose of Jesus.

How do we explain this away? Very simple. Paul's missions were over and done with long before Matthew wrote his tale. While we do not know for sure, it is commonly believed among Biblical scholars that Paul was martyred at the hands of Emperor Nero of Rome in 64 C.E. Matthew was either completely unaware of Paul's life and work, or was writing against Paul. We must not forget that Matthew was a Jew and as a Jewish-Christian would have looked to try and include the people with whom he was closest.

Matthew 2

This chapter opens by telling us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the time of Herod the king of Judah. We learn that three wise men came from the east to Jerusalem and asked Herod for the location of he that was born as the "King of the Jews" for they had seen the star in the east and had come to worship Jesus.

Herod was troubled by this news as was all of Jerusalem. Herod gathered all of the chief priests and scribes to him and demanded to know where "Christ" should be born. They told him that it would be in Bethlehem in the land of Judah because that is how it was written by a prophet. As it is written, from Bethlehem in the land of Judah a Governor would come and rule over my people Israel.

So Herod called the three wise men to him in private and inquired of them when the star appeared. He then sent them to Bethlehem and told them to search diligently for the young child. He told them that when they had found the child that they should return to the king and tell him of the child's location so that he could worship the child, as well.

After hearing the king they departed and saw the star that they had seen in the east go before them until it stood over where the child was. And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with great joy.

The three wise men approached the house and saw the young child with Mary, his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. They then opened their gifts and presented the child with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Having been warned in a dream by God not to return to King Herod, the three wise men departed and returned to their own country in the other direction.

When the wise men departed, the angel of the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and warned him to flee into Egypt with his wife and child because Herod sought to destroy the child. Joseph was instructed to remain in Egypt until he got further word from the angel that it was safe to return.

So when Joseph awoke he took his wife and child and departed into Egypt. There the three remained until the death of King Herod so that the prophecy could be fulfilled which says, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."

When Herod realized that he had been duped by the three wise men, he was extremely angry. He set forth to have all of the children in and around Bethlehem slain which were under the age of two.

Because of the murdering of all of the young children, another prophecy was fulfilled. It said, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

When Herod had died, an angel appeared in yet another dream to Joseph, this time in Egypt. The angel said to Joseph that he should take the child and it's mother and go into the land of Israel, for the ones who sought to end the child's life had died.

In response to the dream, Joseph arose and took Mary and Jesus and returned into the land of Israel. When he heard that Archelaus reigned in his father's (Herod) place, Joseph grew scared and "notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of the Galilee."

They settled in Nazareth and this fulfilled yet another prophecy which said, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

CONCLUSION

The first thing that we learn of in this chapter is the location of the birth of Jesus. We also learn that three wise men from the east saw a star in the east and somehow knew that they had to travel west to see this child. We are never told how they knew that they had to travel west, but travel west they did. Probably the most amusing thing that I have found in the Jesus birth narrative is the three wise men following a star in the east as they traveled west. The only way that this is even possible is if we are to assume that the wise men walked backwards on their way up to Jerusalem.

Somehow the three wise men arrived in Jerusalem and asked King Herod where the "King of the Jews" was. Again we have no knowledge of how these wise men knew that the thing that they sought was a boy or that he would someday be the ruler of his people.

Herod, who didn't want to lose his reign as king, gathered all of his informed people and inquired of them the exact location where this child would be born. They told him that the child would be born in Bethlehem for it was written this way by the prophets.

The prophet that these men (Matthew) were (was) referring to was Micah, a "prophet" from the Jewish testament.

Micah 5:2 - But thou, Bethlehem Ephratath, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler of Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Again we see Matthew trying to pull a fast one on his readers. What was not mentioned in this supposed prophecy is that the leader who would come out of Bethlehem would be a military leader. Verses 5 and 6 of the same chapter state that this man would arise at a time when "the Assyrian shall come into our land... and tread in our palaces". It also says, "then shall we raise seven shepherds and eight principal men, (6)And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword..." Verse 6 concludes, "...thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."

This is clearly not about Jesus, whom the Christians claim to be the Christ. Not only were there no Assyrian invaders in Judea or Israel, but the invaders who Jesus did confront were ultimately responsible for his death and not the other way around. Matthew must have been under the impression that no one would read the context of the things that he called prophecies.

The wise men continued on their quest for the "King of the Jews". This time they traveled south by southwest from Jerusalem to Bethlehem as they followed the star in the east. To compound the mystery, this star somehow paused over a house which the wise men knew contained the object of their journey. That such an event was never recorded in any other place or in any other fashion leads to at least suspect that it is nothing more than the invention of the author.

The three wise men worshipped the child and bestowed gifts on him. They gave him gold, frankincense & myrrh. That a God, or even the son of God would need any of these things seems odd. For that matter, men who were clearly not Jews paying homage to or having written prophecy of the child king of the Jews has always struck me as strange, too.

Following the visit of the three wise men comes a series of dreams in which "God" communicates to people. The first is God warning the wise men not to return to Herod. We are never told how the author comes by this information but we hear of it, anyway. The author might have done better to remain silent on this and other matters rather than leave such questions.

The next dream is another visitation of the angel of the Lord with Joseph. This time the angel warned Joseph of the impending wrath of King Herod. The angel told Joseph to take his new family into Egypt where they would be safe and wait until he got further instructions.

Joseph, who had apparently never been steered wrong by such dreams, took his family to Egypt upon waking, and there remained until the death of Herod. We are told that this fulfills another messianic prophecy which states, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."

The following "prophecy" is one of the easier to dispel. The words that Matthew borrowed from the Old Testament are found in the book of Hosea:

Hosea 11:1- When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt.

So Matthew would now have us believe that Jesus is not just known as Immanuel as found in Isaiah, but also as Israel. Unfortunately for Matthew, the more one reads behind the story the less it stands up as truth.

Hosea was a "prophet" that lived 700-800 years before the time of Jesus in the northern kingdom of Israel. The verse that he wrote to start the 11th chapter of his book is one of recounting history as opposed to predicting a future event. Indeed, it is a remembrance of the collective people of Israel coming out of Egypt in the time of Pharaoh. This can be seen by continuing in the chapter to the next verse:

Hosea 11:2- As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

The sacrificing to Baalim and burning of incense are clearly a recounting of the Israelites worshipping the golden calf while Moses was up on Mount Sinai getting the Ten Commandments.

Yet, if this were to be a prophecy of Jesus, then we must accept that Jesus made sacrifice to idols and prayed to someone who was not "God, the Father".

The next part of Matthew 2 tells of the anger that King Herod expressed when the three wise men did not return to tell him the location of the child king. As a result of this, we are told that King Herod ordered and had carried out the murder of all children under the age of two in and around Bethlehem. This fulfilled another prophecy, this one from the great prophet Jeremy (Jeremiah). It is of the women lamenting the loss of their children in Rama. I will show how this is not a prophecy, as well.

The verse that Matthew borrowed for this "prophecy" comes from the book of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:15- Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

This could very well be about King Herod slaughtering the children of Bethlehem... were it not for the consideration of the whole story behind Jeremiah and his writing. Jeremiah lived in the time of King Nebuchadnezzar, the king that destroyed Jerusalem, slaughtered multitudes of people including children and took the people of Israel into exhile in Babylon.

That Jeremiah was writing of this time period, some 550-600 years before the birth of Jesus, is evidenced by subsequent verses from the chapter:

Jeremiah 31:16-17- Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. (17)And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

Why would children who had been killed "come again to their own border"? Children who had been killed wouldn't. Children who had been taken into exile would.

Again we see Matthew's dishonesty. It is quite clear that the verses in Jeremiah have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus of Nazareth, yet Matthew not only says that they do, but has the nerve to call it a prophecy.

But this is not the worst thing that Matthew has done in this chapter. Nowhere else in any form does the story of Herod killing all of the children of Bethlehem appear. No historian, no poet, no bard composing a song.... nothing. Surely an event of such a horrific nature would have been recorded by more than just one author. Is it possible that Matthew invented this tale of murder? Absolutely. The fact that it is found nowhere else causes me to believe that this is the invention of the author.

The chapter concludes with yet one more visiting of the angel of the Lord to Joseph. The angel appeared sometime after the death of Herod and told Joseph to take the child and mother back into Israel. Joseph apparently did not trust God completely because he did not return to the place from where they had come, but turned north and headed to the Galilee where he and his family settled in the town of Nazareth.

Matthew finished the chapter with, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" This is just the icing on the cake. The recipe consisted of misrepresentations of verses from the Old Testament and the furthering of the idea that a simple child would be conceived by a God. The icing is the final "prophecy," which is found nowhere in the Old Testament.

Bibliography

1. Examination of the Prophecies. Thomas Paine. New York, NY. 1807.