The Eyewitnesses to the Birth of Jesus

Introduction

The canonical gospels approach the birth of Jesus in different ways. Luke records much about Mary’s pregnancy and the events leading up to the birth, whereas Matthew is almost silent on these matters and focuses on the slaughter of the infants and the flight to Egypt. In Luke’s gospel, the baby Jesus is visited by shepherds; in Matthew’s gospel he is visited by magi. The core narrative is the same in both gospels – Jesus is born in Bethlehem to the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit – but the surrounding events are almost entirely different. (It is not my intention to discuss how these events can be reconciled into a single timeline, suffice to say that I do not believe these two accounts to be in contradiction). Mark’s gospel ignores the birth and childhood of Jesus entirely, whereas John makes only veiled reference to it.

In this essay, I will propose that (part of) the explanation for these differences is that the different gospel writers depend on different eyewitnesses for their accounts. I will argue that Matthew’s account is most plausibly read as the testimony of Joseph, probably transmitted through one of his sons, and that Luke’s account is most plausibly read as the testimony of Mary, perhaps told directly to Luke or transmitted through another of the women disciples. This dependence on eyewitness testimony may also explain the absence of an infancy narrative in Mark, since he is likely dependent on Peter as his chief eyewitness. This essay is, in part, motivated by Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, though Bauckham himself does not discuss the infancy narrative.

How the gospels relate to one another

The canonical gospels do not seem to be entirely independent accounts. The overlap between the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) has long since led most to conclude that there must be some interdependence. This is known as the Synoptic Problem. The majority view amongst biblical scholars is that Mark is the earliest gospel and that both Matthew and Luke depended on this gospel and another source (known as Q), with some additional material. Q is a hypothetical source, usually considered to be a collection of the sayings of Jesus. The text of Q is reconstructed from the overlap between Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark.[1] It is often concluded that Q did not contain an infancy narrative, however this is only based on the fact that there is no overlap between the text of Matthew or Luke on this topic. It is conceivable that Q did contain an infancy narrative that was only followed by Matthew or by Luke, or that was followed by neither. (The full extent of Q, assuming it existed, can never be known for this reason). This being said, it might seem peculiar that there should be so little overlap between the infancy narratives of Matthew or Luke, if they had the same source in front of them.

An alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem is that Mark wrote first, Matthew depended on Mark and Luke depended on both Matthew and Mark (this is sometimes known as the ‘Farrer’ hypothesis[2]). On this view there is no Q-source[3] and Luke would have known about Matthew’s infancy narrative when he wrote his own. The problem with this hypothesis is that it would mean that Luke either almost entirely ignored or wilfully contradicted the account from Matthew, replacing almost every detail excepting the core narrative. Now whilst it is possible that Luke has inspired reasons for wishing to focus on shepherds, rather than magi, and on the blessing in the temple, rather than the flight to Egypt, it seems difficult to accept that there should be no trace of Matthew’s infancy narrative in Luke’s had he known about it.

I do not intend to venture an opinion on the Synoptic Problem per se; it seems unlikely either that Matthew and Luke have a shared source for their infancy narratives or that Luke depends on Matthew for his infancy narrative. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Matthew and Luke wrote their infancy narratives independently. The coincidence of the shared core narrative between the two accounts lends weight to the historical veracity of that core narrative.

Matthew’s Infancy Narrative

The key figure in Matthew’s infancy narrative is Joseph, the husband of Mary and Jesus’ step-father. Matthew knows nothing, or at least says nothing, about the angelic visitation to Mary or the time she spent with Elizabeth prior to Jesus’ birth. The first incident Matthew records is Joseph’s discovery that Mary was with child (Matt 1:18-25). This incident is told from Joseph’s perspective: his intention to put her away secretly (v. 19), his dream of the angel (v. 20), his response to the dream (v. 24) and his naming of the child (v. 25). Matthew records two subsequent dreams received by Joseph, one warning him to flee to Egypt (2:13) and one telling him when it was safe to return (vv. 19-20). In each case the response to the dreams is from Joseph: he took Mary and Jesus to Egypt (v. 14), he took Mary and Jesus back to Judea (v. 21) and he becomes afraid of Archelaus and so travels to Galilee (v. 22). In contrast, Mary is passive throughout Matthew’s account, as indicated by the verbs applied to her: she is “betrothed to Joseph” (1:18), “found with child” (1:18), taken as a wife (1:24), seen by the magi (2:11) and taken by Joseph (2:14, 21). Mary is only active in bringing forth Jesus (1:25) and this is subordinate to the subject of the verse, which is Joseph and his not knowing Mary until after the birth. It is Joseph, and not Mary, who is the active figure in Matthew’s account.

If there is eyewitness testimony behind Matthew’s infancy narrative then it is the testimony of Joseph. Not only is he the subject of the narrative but in several cases he is the only possible eyewitness, such as with regards his three dreams (1:20; 2:13, 19-20) or his own intentions (1:19) and fears (2:22). Only Joseph could have borne witness to these things in the first instance and that testimony could only have been known if he relayed it to others.

There is only one part of the story to which Joseph was not a witness and that is the incidents in the court of Herod the Great. We first encounter the magi when they present themselves in Jerusalem (2:1-2), presumably in the royal court (though this is not stated). The account continues with Herod’s concern at this news (v. 3), his enquiry into the prophets (vv. 4-6), his secret meeting with the magi (vv. 7-8). Plausibly, this information could have been relayed to Joseph by the magi when they came to worship Jesus, however the subsequent details could not, that is, the anger of Herod and his command to slay the infants (2:16). This may have been common knowledge. An alternative hypothesis is that Matthew received the testimony of someone who had been in the court of Herod the Great.

Luke’s Infancy Narrative

In contrast to Matthew’s account, Joseph is less conspicuous in Luke’s account. He is first named as the man to whom Mary was betrothed (Luke 1:27) and then not mentioned again until he goes from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be registered (2:4). All subsequent actions taken by Joseph are undertaken with his wife (cf. “they” 2:6, 22, 39; “parents” 2:27; “his father and his mother” 2:33). Nothing in Luke’s account is told from Joseph’s perspective, except those events where his perspective is shared by Mary.

It is Mary who is the key figure for Luke’s account. She receives a visit from an angel (1:26-38), she travels to stay with Elizabeth (1:39-45), she utters her song (1:46-56) and she receives the words of Simeon (2:34-35). These events are unknown in Matthew. It is Mary who is active in Luke’s account. She brings forth a son, she wraps him, and she lays him in the manger (2:7). For some of these events Mary is the key witness. Joseph was not present for all the time that Mary was with Elizabeth. Indeed, since Zechariah and Elizabeth would have been long since dead by the time Luke wrote his gospel, it seems most plausible that Mary’s testimony stands behind Luke’s account of the birth of John. For those events when Joseph is present, they are nevertheless told from Mary’s perspective. For example, regarding the visit of the shepherds Luke notes “Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (2:19). Similarly, during the dedication in the temple, words are directly specifically to Mary (2:34-35); perhaps Joseph heard these words, but they would have had the most personal resonance for Mary.

The Testimony of Joseph

It is often presumed that Joseph had died by the time Jesus began his ministry. This is because of his absence in places where we might otherwise expect him. For example, when Jesus is rejected at Nazareth he is named as “the carpenter”, not the carpenter’s son and Joseph is not listed alongside Jesus’ other family (Mark 6:3 / Matt 13:55). Nor is Joseph mentioned on other occasions when the family of Jesus is mentioned together (Mark 3:31f / Matt 12:46f / Luke 8:19f).[4] Joseph is not mentioned as accompanying Mary at the crucifixion (John 19:25) or in the upper room at the ascension (Acts 1:14). Other reasons why Joseph was not on the scene during these events are conceivable but the most parsimonious conjecture is that Joseph had since died. In any case, the later that one dates Matthew’s gospel, the more likely it is that Joseph was already dead by the time Matthew was gathering his sources; the earliest credible date for the gospel is probably the mid-50s, which would require Joseph to be in his 70s or 80s if he still lived.

This being the case, it seems probable that Matthew did not receive the testimony of Joseph directly but through another source. Given that Matthew does not give Mary’s testimony, as recorded in Luke, we should rule out of the possibility that she was the conduit for Joseph’s testimony. The other most likely candidates for passing on this testimony are the sons of Joseph, some of whom were prominent elders in the church at Jerusalem.

This possibility draws credence from the “Jewishness” of Matthew’s gospel. The early church father, Papias, stated that Matthew “collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue” (Eusebius, HE 3.39.16); certainly a Hebrew gospel, attested to be similar to Matthew, was known to Origen and Jerome.[5] Aside from this, the gospel itself appears to have a special interest in the Jews and the OT. William Barclay expresses the consensus view when he says, “one of the great objects of Matthew is to demonstrate that all the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus”.[6] He also argues that Matthew is especially interested in the conversion of the Jews.  Matthew’s gospel is written within the context of the Jewish institutions at Jerusalem. He alone records Jesus’ warning about the angry person being “in danger of the council” (Matt 5:22). He alone records Jesus’ teaching about the correct state of mind for offering gifts at the altar (Matt 5:23-24). He alone records Jesus’ injunction against swearing by Jerusalem (5:35) or the temple (23:16f). Only Matthew’s gospel records the incident regarding the temple tax (17:24f). Only Matthew notes the detail that priests can profane the Sabbath and be guiltless (12:5). Only Matthew notes that the curtain of the temple was torn in two (27:51). Only Matthew records that the dead came out of their tombs at the crucifixion and entered Jerusalem (27:52-53). Matthew’s gospel is written for those who know about Jerusalem and understand the significance of the temple.

Given thsi likely milieu of Matthew’s gospel, it is not a wild conjecture to suppose that the gospel was written within the Jewish-Christian heartland, perhaps at its most prominent church, Jerusalem. (This, of course, presupposes that the gospel was written prior to AD 70 but I do not regard this as implausible[7]). If so then Matthew would have had access to James, the son of Joseph, and probably other of Jesus’ brothers. Indeed, if Matthew’s gospel was to be received by the Jerusalem church, and other churches thereabouts, it is likely that he had the sanction and support of the leader of that church, James. Of course, we have no evidence that Joseph did impart his testimony to James but, if he imparted it to anyone, James seems like the most probable candidate.

The Testimony of Mary

The latest mention of Mary, mother of Jesus, is in the upper room after the ascension (Acts 1:14). Where Mary went after this is not stated. Jesus commends his mother to the care of the beloved disciple, who took her into his own home (John 19:26-27), presumably in Jerusalem – though, according to tradition, this disciple later went to dwell in Ephesus. If Mary confided the things she kept in her heart to the beloved disciple, then he could have been Luke’s source for this testimony.

Another possibility derives from Bauckham’s proposal that Luke, uniquely amongst the gospel writers, depends on the testimony of certain women, who followed Jesus.[8] These women are named as Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna (Luke 8:3) and Mary, the mother of James (24:10). According to Luke, these were women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and were present at his crucifixion and burial (23:49-55). The four named by Luke were not the only women of Galilee present at the crucifixion, also there were Salome (Mark 15:40), Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary the mother of Jesus (John 19:25). When Luke listed Mary the mother of Jesus in Acts 1:14, he mentions her alongside “the women”, presumably a reference to the women who followed Jesus from Galilee. Can we then surmise that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was part of the group that followed Jesus from Galilee or, at least, was well known to them? Could one or other of them be Luke’s source for Mary’s testimony? The fly in the ointment is that Bauckham argues that the mentions of the women in Luke 8:3 and 24:10 form an inclusio, a specific literary device to bracket the testimony of witnesses. The infancy narratives would fall outside this inclusio.

A simpler solution is recommended by Luke 2:51, where Luke repeats that Mary “kept all these things in her heart” (cf. 2:19). The “kept” must signify that Mary did not speak about these events to others. The fact that Luke puts no time marker on this statement (e.g. “kept in her heart until X”) suggests Luke is not making a casual statement that Mary didn’t talk about it much, but is providing an explanation for recording information hitherto unknown to his readers, i.e. Mary has not yet told anyone else about this things. The implication of this statement then is that Luke has had direct access to things that Mary kept to herself, meaning that Mary is Luke’s witness. Whilst this probably requires an early date for the gospel of Luke (say late-50s or early-60s), this is not implausible. Without further historical information, we cannot know where Mary was dwelling at the time, where and under what circumstances Luke met her and what other involvement, if any, Mary had in the composition of this and other gospels. None of this makes it any less plausible that Luke could have (and did in fact) consulted Mary about her memories of Jesus’ birth.

Explaining the Gospels’ Infancy Narrative

I have argued that Matthew’s infancy narrative is based upon the testimony of Joseph, probably transmitted through James or another of Joseph’s sons, and that Luke’s infancy narrative is based upon the testimony of Mary. This would explain why Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts differ in the events they record, because they were based on different testimonies. Some of the events recorded by either writer could not have been recorded by the other because the unique witness to those events was only to one and not the other.

The dependence on eyewitnesses would also explain the way the other canonical gospels treat the birth of Jesus. Bauckham argues persuasively that Mark’s gospel is based upon the testimony of Peter (as Papias records). Peter was an important eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus but not to the events surrounding his birth. As we have seen some of those events were known uniquely to either Joseph or Mary. Mark almost certainly knows that Joseph is not the real father of Jesus, else he would name Jesus as the “son of Joseph” rather than “son of Mary” (Mark 6:3). He also knows that Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 1:1; 3:11; 5:7; 15:39). But depending largely, perhaps solely, on the testimony of Peter, Mark had no access to the eyewitness testimony of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus and so he does not write about them.

The beloved disciple, on the other hand, did have access to a key eyewitness of the birth of Jesus: Mary. However he chooses not to include those events in his gospel. There are likely two reasons for this. First, it is likely that he wrote after Luke and knew about Luke’s gospel. John’s gospel supplements the Synoptics, rather than depends on them. John had no need to write Mary’s account of the birth of Jesus because he knew that this had already been written. Secondly, John’s gospel is the testimony of the beloved disciple (John 21:24). At no point does he indicate that he is citing any other source or depending on another’s testimony. John could not testify to the birth of Jesus because he was not present. Nevertheless it is clear that John was aware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (cf. John 7:42) and that Joseph was not Jesus’ real father (cf. John 8:41).

The likelihood that the infancy narratives are based upon eyewitness testimony explains the way these events are recorded across the four canonical gospels.

Problems

There are two significant problems with the thesis I have proposed, both deriving from the fact that there is almost no overlap between the accounts of Matthew and Luke. First, bearing in mind that spouses usually know each other better than any other person, is it plausible that the testimony of Joseph should not mention any events for which Mary alone was a witness, and vice versa? For example, did Mary never mention to Joseph that she had received a visit from Gabriel? And if she did, why does not Joseph include it in his testimony? Secondly, and perhaps more problematically, why do the two testimonies not overlap regarding events for which they were both present? For example, both parents were present when the shepherds came (Luke 2:16) and, almost certainly, both parents were present when the magi came (Matt 2:11).[9] Why are these events only mentioned in one account?

In response to these problems, a number of points can be made:

It is plausible that Mary did keep some things secret from her husband. For example, Mary was told by the angel that she would conceive of a child by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), but when Joseph discovers Mary’s pregnancy, he needs to be told that the child is conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20). Either Mary told him about the visit of the angel and he did not believe her, or else Mary did not tell him. The latter is not inconceivable given, (a) Mary and Joseph were only betrothed, not married, and so would be living separately; and (b) Mary spent three months subsequent to the visit of the angel with Elizabeth (Luke 1:56). Even if Mary did later tell Joseph about the angel’s visit, there were other things she kept in her heart (Luke 2:51).

As we have observed, these two accounts are told from a particular perspective. Matthew’s account is written from Joseph’s perspective: it starts with Joseph’s earliest knowledge of the pregnancy and ends with Joseph’s settling the family in Nazareth. It is appropriate for Joseph’s account to stay silent on those events known only to Mary, and vice versa.

We should be careful of making assumptions about how the gospel writers would have interrogated their witnesses. Perhaps Matthew only recounts certain events because his source only told him about certain events. This problem would be compounded by the fact that Matthew almost certainly received Joseph’s testimony second hand. We can see these paucity in Matthew’s account. He has no record of the birth of Jesus itself. He tells his readers that Joseph did not know Mary until after the birth (Matt 1:25) and then jumps to the events after the birth (2:1). We might expect Matthew to record something about the birth itself had he known about it; this glaring omission speaks to the paucity of the testimony he received.

We also cannot ignore the fact that gospel writers select which events they record to suit their own inspired purposes. One of Matthew’s motivations is to demonstrate that the birth of Jesus was the fulfilment of scripture, which he details four times throughout his account (Matt 1:23, 2:15, 17, 23); presumably Matthew selected events that he could most clearly link to prophecies. Another motivation of Matthew is to portray Jesus as a type of Israel, paralleling the events of Exodus with the slaughter of the infants, the coming out of Egypt, both of which build up to the testing of Jesus in the wilderness. Mentioning Jesus’ dedication at the temple, for example, might have been chronologically appropriate but would have disrupted Matthew’s typology. In contrast, Luke is concerned with the covenant of Israel being opened to all who fear God. Therefore, he selects events that emphasize that Jesus came as a continuation that covenant (cf. Luke 1:32-33, 54-55, 68-69, 73-74; 2:4, 11, 22-24, 25, 38), but also to open the covenant to all who fear God (cf. Luke 1:50, 79; 2:4, 14, 32). The slaughter of the infants and the flight of Egypt, though of huge significance to the young family, does not add to Luke’s scheme.

Conclusion

I have shown that the two infancy narratives in the canonical gospels contain the perspectives of Joseph and Mary. I have also shown that it is plausible that the gospel writers had access to these testimonies, perhaps transmitted by a third party. The hypothesis that the gospel writers are dependent on eyewitness testimony not only explains (in part) which events are recorded by the gospel writers but also explains why these events are not recorded in Mark or John.

If this hypothesis is correct then it reinforces the proposal of Bauckham that the gospel writers were concerned to base their gospels on the testimony of eyewitnesses.

---