Was the Star of Bethlehem a myth? A UFO? Or something else? 8 things to know and share

starofbethlehem2The Star of Bethlehem is endlessly fascinating. All kinds of theories about what it was have been proposed.

Based on the way Matthew describes it, some have thought it was a supernatural manifestation that led the magi around.

Some have even suggested it was a flying saucer.

Some have said it was a myth and never really existed.

All of these views are based on the idea that the star didn’t move the way a normal star would.

Is this correct?

Here are 8 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Why would people think the star’s motion was unusual?

There is a popular impression that the magi began following the star in their eastern homeland and that it led them to Jerusalem. This is taken to mean that the star moved from east to west.

From Jerusalem, they go to Bethlehem, which is south of Jerusalem.

Then, according to this impression, the star stops and hovers over the house where Jesus was residing.

The star is thus taken to move from east to west, turn south, and then hover.

That makes it sound like a light in the sky that isn’t a normal star but something else.

However, this account is mistaken.

 

2) Why is it mistaken?

This view goes wrong because of the assumption that the magi were following the star.

That’s not what Matthew says.

Let’s look at what he does say:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying,  “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him” [Matthew 2:1-2].

The phrase “in the East” is ambiguous. It might mean that they were in the East when they saw it (they were from the East, after all), or it may mean that they saw it when it rose over the eastern horizon.

Except for the stars that never set, stars rise over the eastern horizon and set below the western horizon, just like the sun does.

Either way, this does not tell us much, because the event occurred between one and two years earlier, based on the time they tell Herod (Matthew 2:16).

The apparent position of the star would have changed radically over that time, as almost all stars do as the earth orbits the sun.

In any event, Matthew does not say that the magi were following the star. He does not say that it led them to Jerusalem.

Instead, he says something that suggests something else.

 

3) What does he say that suggests they weren’t just following the star?

It’s the fact that they ask where the King of the Jews has been born.

If the star were leading them around by the nose, as it were, then they wouldn’t have had to ask this question. They would have just waited until nightfall and then continued following the star until it led them to the newborn king.

Thus, we have no indication that they followed the star from their homeland in the East to Jerusalem.

Instead, they saw the star from their homeland, realized that it implied the birth of a new king for the Jews, and then went to the royal palace in Jerusalem, where you might expect to find the newborn king.

After a consultation, Herod tells them that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, and they set out again.

But even here, Matthew does not say they were following the star.

 

4) What does he say?

He states:

When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy [Matthew 2:9-10].

So after they leave King Herod, they see the star again. Matthew introduces this by saying “lo” (i.e., “behold!”), indicating something surprising or remarkable.

The fact that they “rejoiced exceedingly with great joy” also suggests that they weren’t following the star. It was a remarkable and joyous (and providential) coincidence that the star was in front of them when this happened.

So it wasn’t that they were following the star. They had stopped to ask where they should go, they were told Bethlehem, and then as they were going to Bethlehem they were surprised and joyous to see the same star in front of them.

This was a providential coincidence, but they would have gone to Bethlehem even if they had not seen the star in front of them.

 

5) Does the fact that the star “went before them” indicate unusual motion on the star’s part?

No. It simply means that the star remained in front of them during the short trip to Bethlehem.

Bethlehem is only six miles from Jerusalem, and since the star was in front of them when they began the six mile walk (or ride), it remained in the same general part of the sky during the short trip.

 

6) Does the fact that the star “came to rest over the place where the child was” indicate unusual motion?

No, but the English translation here (the RSV) is a misleading one.

Saying that it “came to rest” suggests that it stopped moving and started resting. That could suggest unusual motion for a star.

But what the Greek says would be better translated “until it came and stood” or “until it came to stand” over the place.

This just means that, when they drew near at the house, the magi observed that this star appeared to be above the house in the sky—as numerous other stars would have been as well.

This does not mean that this star or the others above the house froze in their motions, only that this was where they were as the magi approached.

It’s another providential coincidence, but it does not indicate unusual motion (or lack of motion) on the part of the star.

 

7) So we don’t have an indication that the star moved in an abnormal manner?

No. The magi were not following it as it zigged and zagged in the sky. In fact, it did not zig and zag in the sky.

So far as we know, the star moved in the entirely normal way that stars do.

It was simply a providential coincidence that, as the magi were on their way to Bethlehem they saw the star in front of them, that it stayed generally in front of them as they journeyed the six miles, and—when they neared the house—was in the part of the sky that was over the house where Jesus was.

 

8) After noting that it was before them when they began their journey, and that it continued to remain before them as they went, could they have used the star to indicate which house in Bethlehem they should check?

This is possible, but they also could have asked if any local families of the line of David had a child of the right age and then noted, upon going to that house, that the star was above it.

How the accounts of Jesus’ childhood fit together: 6 things to know and share

joseph-maryBoth Matthew and Luke contain accounts of Jesus’ infancy.

But they don’t describe all the same events.

As a result, some have even accused Matthew and Luke of contradicting each other.

What’s the true story? Why did they record different events? And can the two be fit together?

Here are 6 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Why don’t the Gospels all record the same events as each other?

Because there was too much information to fit into a single book about Jesus.

John notes this specifically, and humorously, at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25).

In the ancient world, they didn’t have the printing technology needed to make large books, and so there was pressure to keep each single book short by modern standards.

This meant each Evangelist had to leave many things out.

There was also more than one way to approach telling the story of Jesus, to benefit different audiences, and so each Evangelist takes a somewhat different approach, and that affects his selection of which stories and sayings to include in his Gospel.

 

2) What approaches do Matthew and Luke take in their accounts of Jesus’ childhood?

The accounts of Jesus’ childhood are known as “infancy narratives.”

Although both have many points in common (e.g., Jesus was born of a Virgin named Mary, his foster father was Joseph, he was born in Bethlehem, the family later moved to Nazareth, etc.), it’s clear that Matthew and Luke are emphasizing different aspects of Jesus and the people around him.

Matthew keeps his account short, he focuses on Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph, and he emphasizes Jesus kingly role (descent through Solomon in the genealogy, seen as a threat by King Herod, visited by foreign dignitaries, etc.).

Luke devotes much more space to the events, he focuses on Jesus mother, Mary, and he does not emphasize Jesus’ kingship as much (e.g., he records him being visited by humble shepherds).

 

3) Can we track the movements of the Holy Family (and the others in the narratives) by bringing together Matthew and Luke’s accounts?

Yes. The texts give us enough indications of time and sequence to do this, as follows:

1. Gabriel appears to Zecharaiah in Jerusalem to announce the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-22).

2. At the end of his term of service, Zechariah returns to his home in the hill country of Judea and his wife, Elizabeth, becomes pregnant (Luke 1:23-25; cf. 39).

3. In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the fifth month but before the end of the sixth month), Gabriel appears to Mary in Nazareth to announce the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38).

4. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and stays for three months before returning to Nazareth (Luke 1:39-56). This appears to happen in the ninth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the eighth month but before the end of the ninth month).

5. In the tenth month of her pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the ninth month but before the end of a tenth month), Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist and, eight days later, John is circumcised and named (Luke 1:57-80; note that the ancient Israelites reckoned pregnancy as lasting ten months, not nine; cf. Wisdom 7:2; technically, a pregnancy lasted 9.6 months on the Jewish calendar, but the ancients rounded all fractions up; by comparison, a pregnancy is typically 9.3 months on a modern calendar, but we round this fraction down instead of up).

6. Some time between event 3 and event 7, Joseph is informed that Mary is pregnant and he plans to divorce her quietly. However, an angel appears to him in a dream and tells him to go ahead and continue the marriage (Matthew 1:18-23). Most likely, this event occurred after Mary returned from her visit to Elizabeth. Joseph likely would have waited to deal with the divorce question until Mary’s pregnancy was confirmed, either by it beginning to show or by Mary reaching the point of “quickening” (when the unborn child was large and strong enough for the mother to feel it kicking in the womb). In the absence of pregnancy tests, the ancients used these as proof that a woman was pregnant. These points would have been reached around or shortly after the time Mary remained with Elizabeth. In fact, they may have motivated her return home so that she, also, could go into seclusion for the remainder of her pregnancy.

7. Joseph and Mary then begin cohabiting (Matthew 1:24). This would have been in Nazareth, per Luke’s account.

8. Because of the enrollment announced by Caesar Augustus, the Holy Family is forced to travel to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5), despite Mary’s pregnancy (which was at this point in the second or third trimester). If this was a tax enrollment, the journey was likely required because Joseph owned property there (cf. Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 3:62-63). While there, they likely stayed with relatives, but there were so many that there was no room in the main part of the house, and so they stayed in the part (likely a grotto) where the animals were kept. Animals were often kept in the homes of the people who owned them at this time.

9. Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:7, Matthew 1:24a).

10. That same night, shepherds visited them (Luke 2:8-20).

11. About this time, an unusual star is observed by the magi in their eastern homeland (cf. Matthew 2:2, 16).

12. Eight days after the birth, Jesus was circumcised and named (Luke 2:21, Matthew 1:24b).

13. Forty days after the birth, Jesus was presented at the temple in Jerusalem, and the Holy Family encountered Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:22-38; more here; cf. Leviticus 12:1-8).

13. It is possible that, shortly after this, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth (cf. Luke 2:39-40). If so, they later returned to Bethlehem for reasons we will see in a moment. If they did return to Nazareth at this point, they likely returned to Bethlehem multiple times in the next 1-2 years, because they observed the three annual pilgrimage feasts that Jews were required to make each year (cf. Luke 2:41; Exodus 23:14-17). These required to go to Jerusalem, and they likely stayed with relatives in Bethlehem on these occasions, since Bethlehem is just 6 miles from Jerusalem.

It is also possible that they did not return to Nazareth at this time but stayed in Bethlehem for a period of as much as two years (cf. Matthew 2:16). The likely seems the more probable, for reasons we shall see. If they did stay in Bethlehem instead of returning to Nazareth, they probably continued to live with relatives. It is possible that they acquired their own house, but it was much more common in ancient Israel than it is today to have an extended family living under the same roof, especially among the poor (cf. Luke 2:24 with Leviticus 12:8).

14. Between one and two years after the birth (cf. Matthew 2:16), the magi appear in Jerusalem and ask Herod the Great where the newborn king of the Jews is to be found. They are directed to Bethlehem, and they travel there by night. They note that the star is now in the southern sky (the direction of Bethlehem from Jerusalem), and when they arrive they note that, from their perspective, the same star is above the house in a providential coincidence. They then enter the house, see the child Jesus with Mary, pay him homage, and offer gifts (Matthew 2:1-11).

This encounter could have occurred anywhere between one and two years after Jesus’ birth, given the tendency of the ancients to round up all fractions and the desire on Herod’s part to make sure he would eliminate Jesus (he would not want to have cut it close and missed the baby by a few days or months, so he would have at least rounded up and may have even padded the amount of time the magi told him).

15. The magi are warned in a dream (that night or very quickly after) to return to their country by a different route, which they then do (Matthew 2:12).

16. After they leave, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, which the Holy Family then does (Matthew. 2:13-15).

17. Some time shortly afterward, Herod realizes that the magi are not coming back and flies into a rage. He orders all the boys two years old and under who are in Bethlehem to be killed (Matthew 2:16-18). This is entirely in keeping with what we know about Herod, particularly in the latter portion of his reign. He had several of his own sons killed when he perceived them as threats, and Caesar Augustus reportedly quipped that it would be better to be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son (the joke being that, as a Jew, Herod couldn’t eat pork, so his pig would be safe; more here).

18. Herod the Great dies (this likely happened in 1 B.C. not 4 B.C.), and his sons assume full authority over the different parts of his kingdom (they likely had partial authority as co-rulers for a few years prior, as was common in the ancient world). This leaves Herod Archelaus in control of Judea.

19. In Egypt, Joseph is informed in a dream that Herod the Great is dead, and he is told to return to Israel. He and the Holy Family do so (Matthew 2:19-21).

20. Once back in Israel, Joseph is informed that Herod Archelaus is ruling in Judea in place of his father. Knowing Archelaus’s reputation, Joseph is afraid to settle in Judea (Matthew 2:22a). Joseph’s impression is confirmed by the historical record. Archelaus was a terrible ruler who was eventually removed from power by the Romans, who replaced him with a governor in A.D. 6. This is why Judea is ruled by a governor (Pontius Pilate) during Jesus’ adult ministry, rather than by one of Herod’s sons.

21. Being warned in a dream, Joseph relocates the family to its previous home in Nazareth, which, being in Galilee, is outside of Archelaus’s territory (Matthew 2:22b-23; this is likely the same relocation referred to in Luke 2:39).

22. The family continues to make the annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and when Jesus is twelve, at Passover, Jesus remains behind and his parents find him in the temple three days later (Luke 2:41-52).

So there you have it: an integration of Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives.

 

4) Why is it likely that the move from Bethlehem to Nazareth that mentioned in Luke 2:39 the same as the one mentioned in Matthew 2:22?

There are a few reasons. Before looking at them, we should set aside an impression that we—as modern readers—are likely to be misled by.

In modern biographies, we expect much more complete accounts than the ancients did. This is because of the longer lengths of books today. Our books are simply able to contain more information, and so modern authors are expected to include it.

This wasn’t nearly as easy for ancient authors, and so ancient audiences expected them to omit more and to focus more on the highlights.

Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the family later went to Nazareth, where he was raised. Those were the most important points about his infancy.

Whether they went directly from Bethlehem to Nazareth or whether they had a detour somewhere else was a matter of lesser importance that one Evangelist might choose to include where another might not.

Biblical authors were allowed to proceed from one event that they chose to incorporate to another, with or without mentioning how much time elapsed between them.

Indeed, they were allowed to arrange material in sequences other than chronology (e.g., they were allowed to arrange it by topic, since this was in an age before chronology was anywhere near as strict as it is today).

All Luke says is that the Holy Family moved to Nazareth “when [i.e., after] they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord.”

That’s true, regardless of how long after these actions they remained in Bethlehem or whether they went anywhere else before going to Nazareth.

 

5) Why, specifically, isn’t it likely that they were in Bethlehem for a pilgrimage when the magi appeared?

One reason is that the odds of the magi appearing while the Holy Family happened to be on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem is quite low.

The Old Testament laws regarding pilgrimage did not require people to be there for extended periods of time, and it would be unlikely for foreign visitors to show up during one of these periods.

Another reason is that the text may envision Joseph contemplating the idea relocating the family from Egypt to Bethlehem (or, at any rate, into Judea) until he learns that Archelaus is ruling over Judea.

This is more explainable if the Holy Family had been living in Bethlehem of Judea on an extended basis than if it had only been visiting Bethlehem for a few days.

 

6) How did the Holy Family’s moves likely proceed?

Initially, the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary in Nazareth, after which she visited the hill country of Judea for a time, before returning to Nazareth.

After an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, the two began cohabiting in Nazareth.

Then, both travelled to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.

They then remained in Bethlehem for between one and two years. Why is not discussed. It may have been initially motivated by a number of factors:

  • A desire to avoid a long trip so soon after the birth
  • A desire to stay in the area so that Jesus could be presented at the temple at forty days (otherwise three long trips would be needed; one to Nazareth, one back for the presentation, and then back to Nazareth again)
  • The availability of help in caring for the baby by kinfolk in Bethlehem

While staying there, business opportunities then likely arose for Joseph in the area, and they either fell into or consciously decided on a longer-term relocation to Bethlehem.

They may have even decided to stay in Bethlehem precisely because of the prophesy that the Messiah would be from there. They may initially have planned to give Jesus an upbringing in Bethlehem in fulfillment of this prophecy.

Such was not necessary, however, and after the appearance of the magi, they fled to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod the Great.

Upon returning to Israel, they learned that Archelaus was ruling over Judea. Understanding the danger this posed, and Joseph being warned in a dream, the Holy Family decided to relocate to their prior home in Nazareth.

Interesting Thoughts About Acts

St._Peter_and_PaulLately I’ve been doing a big study project on the Gospels and Acts, including the chronological elements in the books.

Acts is a book that contains an astonishingly large number of chronological references.

 

Travel Time

Luke tells us a lot about St. Paul’s travels and how long they took. He not only which towns Paul visited but, frequently, how long it too to get from one to another and how long he stayed there.

These chronological references are found only in the material related to St. Paul. You don’t get them in such density in the earlier material in Acts or in Luke’s Gospel (though you do get some chronological references).

The things is . . . when you check up on the travel times Luke uses by consulting ancient travel resources like the ORBIS database, Luke is invariably right.

If he says that it took Paul two days to get from Point A to Point B then that’s a reasonable travel time for the period.

Of course, Luke was a travel companion of Paul during much of this period (as indicated by the “we” sections of Acts), but this kind of thing happens so often that it would seem to exceed the capacity of human memory.

Sure, people could memorize all the destinations and their travel times, but it would require a special effort to commit this to memory, and this would seem implausible. That suggests one of two things:

  • When writing Acts, Luke used maps and the memories of his traveling companions to reconstruct all of this information.
  • Luke (or someone else in the Pauline circle) kept a travel diary/itinerary.

I think the latter is more likely, and for two reasons.

First, the appearance of the chronological references is not consistent throughout all of the Pauline material. Sometimes you get travel times and sometimes you don’t. If Luke had an interest in including such material (as he clearly does) then why not reconstruct the information consistently? Why leave it out some times?

A plausible explanation is that the travel diary (perhaps because of the periodic absence of the disciple who was keeping it) was not complete and memory wasn’t enough to fill in the gaps.

It would be an interesting study to track the presence of chronological references inside and outside the “we” passages, so I’ll have to look at that.

Second, you don’t get such references in such density in the first part of Acts, before St. Paul starts his travels. This also suggests a travel diary, because if it were all reconstruction, you’d expect the same kind of references early on.

Of course, you do get some chronological references (including, e.g., St. Peter’s travel time between Joppa and Caesarea Maritima in Acts 10), but not as many.

Some things may have been remembered, some may have been reconstructed, but I still suspect that a travel diary was used in St. Paul’s journeyings.

 

Luke’s Main Sources

If you read Acts, you’ll see that the book primarily tracks St. Peter in the first part and then switches over to track St. Paul in the latter part.

These are the two main figures.

The focus on St. Peter is so intense in the first part that, if Luke had stopped writing with chapter 12, the book could have been called “The Acts of Peter.”

The focus on St. Paul is so intense in the second part that, if Luke had started writing with chapter 13, the book could have been called “The Acts of Paul.”

Why would he focus on these two figures?

Of course, he’s telling the story of the early Church down to his day, and St. Peter was the major figure in that. Luke was also the companion of St. Paul, but that doesn’t explain why the focus is so exclusively on these two.

The other apostles are barely mentioned, and they come into the story (at most), being mentioned as companions of Peter and Paul (e.g., John as a companion of Peter and Barnabas as a companion of Paul).

So here’s a thought: Where was Acts written from?

Rome.

The book ends in A.D. 60, with Paul spending two years in Rome. Then the narrative suddenly cuts off, before we find out how Paul’s trial before Caesar ended.

That’s not a natural place to stop the narrative. If the trial had already taken place and Paul had been acquitted (as other sources suggest) then Luke would have recorded that as the triumphant vindication of Paul. On the other hand, if the trial had already taken place and Paul had been condemned (as he later was on a second stay in Rome, A.D. 67), Luke would have had the story of Paul’s glorious martyrdom to record.

This suggests that Acts was written during Paul’s stay in Rome and finished in A.D. 60.

So what sources did Luke have to draw upon?

Obviously, Paul himself–as well as the memories of other members of the Pauline circle and whatever notes they had about Paul’s missionary journeys.

That explains the Pauline material that dominates the book from chapter 13 on. But what about the St. Peter material that dominates it up to chapter 12?

Guess who else was in Rome.

Peter.

Peter was there with Paul when they were martyred in A.D. 67, and other sources indicate that he spent much of the previous twenty-five years in Rome. He may have traveled some, but not as much as Paul.

That means he was likely in Rome while Luke was writing Acts, and thus he would have been a natural source to turn to for information about the early years of the Church.

The fact that we don’t get much about his activities after the Paul narrative begins is likely because he wasn’t traveling much. He spent most of his time being the pastor of the Christians in Rome, and this was a fairly uneventful time since Nero’s persecution had not yet begun (it started in A.D. 64, after Acts is over).

The fact that Peter and Paul dominate the narrative in Acts is thus likely because they were Luke’s two main sources.

 

Minor Sources

There are a handful of figures in Acts besides Peter and Paul who briefly occupy the spotlight:

  • Stephen
  • Philip
  • Priscilla and Aquila

Each of these gets at least one story where they are the protagonist(s).

Stephen would not have been the source for his own martyrdom (chapter 7), though, because he was dead afterwards. Both Peter and Paul were present (either in Jerusalem or in the very place) for the martyrdom of Stephen, though, and either or both could have been Luke’s source about this.

Philip has a series of stories in chapter 8, and that suggests that he was Luke’s source of this material.

This Philip is probably not Philip the Zealot (one of the Twelve) but a different man–known as Philip the Evangelist–who was originally one of the Seven, along with Stephen.

According to later sources, Philip later lived at Ephesus, where he also took his four daughters who were prophetesses.

Could Luke plausibly have come in contact with him there?

You bet! Paul spends three whole years in Ephesus on one occasion, apart from visiting it on others.

So Luke could easily have spoken to Philip and learned the material in Acts 8.

Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned several times in the New Testament, and they occupy the spotlight in Acts 18, when they are staying at Ephesus and instruct Apollos in St. Paul’s absence.

They crossed paths with Paul and his companions a number of times and thus could easily have served as Luke’s source for this material.

How many of your favorite New Testament books were popular among the early Christians?

BodmerPapyrusObviously, taken as a whole, the books of the New Testament were quite popular. They were Scripture, after all!

But how popular were they individually?

People today have favorite books in the Bible–ones they go to all the time, and ones they only rarely look at.

This is a phenomenon that affects both the books of the Old and the New Testament, and it’s possible to get a sense of how popular particular books were in particular time periods.

One way of doing that–before the Bible was bound as a single volume–is by seeing how many copies there are of individual books.

In Larry W. Hurtado’s outstanding study, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, he offer a listing of how many early (2nd-3rd century) manuscripts we have pieces of from the books of the New Testament.

This gives us an approximate idea (but only an approximate idea) of which books were more popular than others in this time period, because the Christians in these centuries had to have copies make of single books or a few books together, and the more popular they were, more copies would be made, and the more likely the manuscripts would be to survive to today.

Recently there have been rumors of a number of new early manuscripts being found, but these have not been verified as yet. If they are verified these might alter the following counts slightly, but they would not offer the overall picture much.

Here’s the count both by canonical frequency and order:

By Frequency:

  • John (16)
  • Matthew (12)
  • Luke (7)
  • Acts (7)
  • Revelation (5)
  • Romans (4)
  • Hebrews (4)
  • Ephesians (3)
  • 1 Thessalonians (3)
  • James (3)
  • 1 Corinthians (2)
  • Philippians (2)
  • 2 Thessalonians (2)
  • Jude (2)
  • Mark (1)
  • 2 Corinthians (1)
  • Galatians (1)
  • Colossians (1)
  • Titus (1)
  • Philemon (1)
  • 1 Peter (1)
  • 2 Peter (1)
  • 1 John (1?)
  • 2 John (1)
  • 1 Timothy (0)
  • 2 Timothy (0)
  • 3 John (0)

By Canonical Order:

  • Matthew (12)
  • Mark (1)
  • Luke (7)
  • John (16)
  • Acts (7)
  • Romans (4)
  • 1 Corinthians (2)
  • 2 Corinthians (1)
  • Galatians (1)
  • Ephesians (3)
  • Philippians (2)
  • Colossians (1)
  • 1 Thessalonians (3)
  • 2 Thessalonians (2)
  • 1 Timothy (0)
  • 2 Timothy (0)
  • Titus (1)
  • Philemon (1)
  • Hebrews (4)
  • James (3)
  • 1 Peter (1)
  • 2 Peter (1)
  • 1 John (1?)
  • 2 John (1)
  • 3 John (0)
  • Jude (2)
  • Revelation (5)

As you’d expect, the Gospels and Acts are the most popular books of all–with the exception of Mark, which was startlingly less popular (most likely because it’s short and does not contain much unique information; it’s virtually all found in Matthew and Luke; also, it’s literary style is lesser).

After the Gospels and Acts, Revelation is the next most popular (everybody wants to know about the Apocalypse!). This is interesting in part because the canonicity of Revelation was doubted by some for a time, but it’s subject matter is compelling.

After that we find Paul’s epistles, which tend to be more popular than the Catholic epistles, and the longer works tend to be more popular than the shorter ones (which you might predict since a shorter work is, by its nature, less informative than a longer one).

The fact that Hebrews has as many early manuscripts as Romans is surprising, partly because its canonicity was questioned by some. The high Christology it contains, however, might have boosted how popular it was (it also is a longer work).

James is also quite popular–moreso than the other Catholic epistles.

All of this has to be taken with some nuance, because what survived may not be fully representative of what was popular. Also, discovering even a few new manuscripts would change the rankings of some of these books.

But it’s still helpful for developing a general picture of what was popular.

And that picture significantly coincides with what most Christians today consider the most popular books.

So which of your favorites rank high–or don’t? Let me know in the comment box!

What did the Gospel writers know?

four-gospelsSome biblical scholars are too quick to say that, because a particular Gospel doesn’t include a given story or saying of Jesus, the Evangelist who wrote it must not have known about it.

Really?

What would cause a person to think this?

 

The Infodump Hypothesis

One thing that might motivate such a view is the idea that the Gospels represent total infodumps of everything that a particular Evangelist knew about Jesus.

But if that were the case then they wouldn’t ready the way that they do.

They hang together as narratives and display too much literary artistry for that.

If they were frantic attempts to record everything the author knew about Jesus, there would be too many stray, half-formed things that don’t fit into their literary structures.

They also would be much longer than they are.

 

TMI

There would have simply been Too Much Information about Jesus for the Evangelists to put in the Gospels.

They had to make choices.

This would particularly be the case if Matthew and John were, indeed, eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry. They would have known lots about Jesus—far more than could be fit into a small book like a Gospel. Such authors would be forced to omit things they know about Jesus.

Even non-eyewitness authors (like Luke and, at least for the most part, Mark) were in contact with eyewitnesses and had access to lots of information about him.

The oral preaching of Jesus that preceded the writing of the Gospels was extensive, and the original eyewitnesses were still there and able to be implored: “Tell me more about Jesus!”

It is inescapable that the Evangelists would have known things about Jesus, either from their own experience of his ministry, from speaking with eyewitnesses, or from information that was in common circulation about him, that they did not put in the Gospels.

 

The Agrapha of Jesus

We even have examples of what may be authentic sayings of Jesus that weren’t recorded in the Gospels. They are known as “agrapha” (Greek, “unwritten ones”), and they are for the most part found in the writings of the Church Fathers, who attributed them to Jesus despite their not being in the Gospels.

KEEP READING.

The Aramaic Apocalypse and the Anunciation

4q246-manuscriptThere is a document in the Dead Sea Scrolls known as the Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246).

You can read the full (surviving) text here, along with some commentary.

The parts that I would like to call attention to are these:

He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the Son of the Most High, like a shooting star [Col. 2, Line 1].

Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and their paths will be righteous [Col. 2, Line 5]

Any of that sound familiar?

How about:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end” [Luke 1:31-33]

It’s no surprise, then, that many scholars view the Aramaic Apocalypse as referring to a messianic figure.

An additional piece of evidence is that it compares the Son of God/Son of the Most High to a shooting star. The symbol of a star was also connected with the Messiah.

The interesting thing to me is that it’s another illustration about how ideas found in Christianity (such as the identification of the Messiah with the Son of God) were already found elsewhere in first century Palestinian Judaism.

They may not have understood that the Messiah would be the Son of God in the same sense that Christians came to, but the linkage was already there.

Why was Jesus baptized?

BaptismOfJesusThis Sunday, the Church celebrates the baptism of Jesus Christ.

It’s an event that is recorded in all four gospels, so we know it’s important.

But there’s a question that has puzzled Christians all down through the ages.

It even puzzled John the Baptist, who performed the baptism.

Why was Jesus baptized?

 

The Problem

We all know what baptism does.

According to the Catechism:

The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes:

  • forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins,
  • birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

By this very fact the person baptized is

  • incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and
  • made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ [CCC 1279].

 

So, as you can see, it’s quite clear why Jesus would need to be baptized. He . . . hey, wait!

Jesus didn’t need to achieve any of those things!

Why, then, was he baptized?

Why did he insist on it, even when John the Baptist resisted?

 

The Answer

Here’s a short video to explain . . .

(Click here to watch the video on YouTube.)

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He had a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

When was Judas replaced?

JudasIscariotFaceI’ve been doing some work on biblical chronology–the study of precisely when in history various events recorded in the Bible took place–and I thought of something that I haven’t seen pointed out before.

In Acts 1, Peter prompts the Eleven to replace Judas Iscariot, and they do, with Matthias being selected to take his place.

When would this have occurred?

It’s bracketed in a very small window of time between Ascension Thursday and Pentecost.

The election of a new apostle would presuppose the presence of the Eleven, and the text indicates that those actually present included the full “hundred and twenty” (v. 15), indicating a major gathering of the full, embryonic Christian community.

This could only have occurred on the first Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) or on the first Lord’s Day (Sunday) following Ascension Thursday.

When would those days have been?

Based on previous chronological work I’ve done, I’ve determined that the most likely date for the Crucifixion is the traditional one: April 3, A.D. 33.

I don’t say that just because I’m a fan of tradition (though I am), but because when you sort through the mountain of data that pertains to the issue, that’s the date that emerges as the most probable.

Given that, Easter Sunday would be April 5th, and Ascension Thursday would be May 14.

Pentecost, on the Jewish way of reckoning it (seven weeks after Passover, not seven weeks after Easter Sunday), would have been Friday, May 22.

That gives us this schedule of days:

  • Thurs., May 14 (Ascension)
  • Fri., May 15
  • Sat., May 16
  • Sun., May 17
  • Mon., May 18
  • Tues., May 19
  • Wed., May 20
  • Thurs., May 21
  • Fri., May 22 (Pentecost)

So there you have it: Matthias was most likely chosen to be Judas’s successor on Saturday, May 16 or Sunday, May 17, A.D. 33.

How Is Mary’s Question Different?

annunciation-midIn Luke 1, the Angel Gabriel appears twice.

First, he appears to Zechariah the priest, to tell him that he will be the father of John the Baptist.

Then, a few verses later, he appears to the Virgin Mary to tell her that she will be the mother of Jesus Christ.

Both Zechariah and Mary ask questions of the angel–but with very different results.

Zechariah is rendered mute and unable to speak until John the Baptist is circumcised!

Mary . . . isn’t.

So, what’s the difference?

They both asked questions about the seemingly impossible pregnancies that Gabriel had come to announce?

Why is Zechariah treated so differently?

Is God just playing favorites with Mary?

Or is there a subtle difference between their questions and the attitudes which the questions reveal?

That’s what I take a look at in this podcast and video.

 

 

YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.

By the way, don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel so that you’ll get a shiny new email whenever I post a video!
OR . . .

YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE EPISODE.

Or use the player below at JimmyAkin.com . . .

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He had a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

4th Sunday of Advent: 10 things to know and share

dream_of_joseph_champaigneThis Sunday the readings include the famous prophecy of Immanuel.

They proclaim God’s supremacy and our call to holiness.

They review the basics of the gospel message.

And they record the birth of Jesus and how it came about.

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What does the first reading say?

The first reading is Isaiah 7:10-14. (You can read it here.)

In this reading the prophet Isaiah confronts Ahaz, the king of Judea. He demands that Ahaz name a sign to show that the Lord will protect his kingdom. The sign can be as “high as heaven” or “as deep as sh’ol” (Hebrew, “the grave,” “the underworld”; pronounced “sh’OL”).

Ahaz, however, refuses to name a sign, saying, “I will not put the Lord to the test.”

Isaiah then declares:

Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also?

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.

Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

 

2) What does this mean?

At the time the prophecy was given, the southern kingdom of Judah was demoralized by news that the northern kingdom of Israel was in league with Syria.

Under God’s inspiration, Isaiah wanted to strengthen the courage of the Judean king, Ahaz. He therefore offered him a sign from God to prove that he would defend the kingdom of Judea.

Ahaz, however, refused to name a sign—on the pretext that one should not “test the Lord” (Deut. 6:16).

While it is true, as a general rule, that one should not put the Lord to the test, this rule is suspended if the Lord himself invites you to do so.

As a result, Isaiah—an established prophet of the Lord—rebukes Ahaz and declares that he is not only wearing out the patience of men but is also wearing out the patience of God by refusing to name a sign.

He then declares that the Lord himself will name a sign, and gives the famous prophecy of “Immanuel.”

 

3) What does the prophecy of “Immanuel” mean?

KEEP READING.