1. Introduction
In the Hermeneia Series version of his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 1–7 published in 2007, Ulrich Luz dismisses attempts to discern prior traditions behind the Magi story in Matthew 2, characterising this text as lacking the ‘tensions and contradictions that have led to its source-critical deconstruction’.Footnote 1 Yet in that same year, in ‘The Star of the Magi: Lore and Science in Ancient Zoroastrianism, the Greek Magical Papyri and St. Matthew’s Gospel’, Roy D. Kotansky argues that this pericope from the M Source regarding the star of Bethlehem reflects Zoroastrian traditions about Magi who divine from a star seen falling to Earth the birth of a coming Saošyant, a saviour and future prince, who will deliver the world from present bondage and inaugurate the promised blessing of a new millennium.Footnote 2 Following (in part) Nikos Kokkinos’ chronology for Jesus’ birth,Footnote 3 Kotansky makes the case that the star of Bethlehem is not part of a midrash fulfilling the prophecy that ‘a star shall come forth out of Jacob’ (Num 24.17); it is, rather, Halley’s comet (1P/Halley) which appeared twice in the sky in 12 bce during the rulership of Herod the Great, precipitating a range of predictions in the region.Footnote 4 According to Kotansky, the author of the Gospel of Matthew integrated Zoroastrian interpretations of this astronomical phenomenon with Jewish messianic and Bethlehemic segments such as Mic 5.2 (Matt 2.6).Footnote 5 Kotansky acknowledges that his interpretation results in two Synoptic dates for Jesus’ birth: (1) 12 bce with the appearance of the comet (Matt 2.2, 9, 10), and (2) 6/7 ce (hereafter 6 ce) at the time of the census by Quirinius (Luke 2.2).Footnote 6 If Kotansky is correct that messianic and Bethlehemic segments were added to a core Zoroastrian tradition in Matthew 2, what prompted these intrusions? The present essay will explore whether the messianic and Bethlehemic segments of this chapter suggest a lost tradition of the birth of John the Baptist that took place in 12 bce at the time of Halley’s comet, implying a separate tradition of Jesus’ birth in 6 ce at the time of the census of Quirinius (ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ‘first census’, Luke 2.2).Footnote 7
2. The Births of John and Jesus
In 1989, Nikos Kokkinos advanced the thesis that the star of Bethlehem refers to the appearance of Halley’s comet in 12 bce.Footnote 8 Hitherto, this hypothesis had been ignored because the date was considered too early to accommodate other NT evidence about Jesus’ life.Footnote 9 Kokkinos’ case is based on the following four observations.Footnote 10 First, the star of Bethlehem is a single ‘star’ of giant expanse (not a group of stars); this is precisely the impression made by a comet. Kokkinos explains, ‘Comets sometimes extend 90 degrees or more on the vault of heaven.’Footnote 11 Second, the ‘star’ appeared twice (2.2, 9) just as comets do, which come into view initially and then are seen again in their perihelion, the point in a comet’s highly elliptical orbit when it swings around the back of the sun and reappears.Footnote 12 Kokkinos writes, ‘Comets remain visible for days, weeks, and months, and often reach a maximum brilliance considerably brighter than Jupiter. They appear twice: once as they approach the sun and again after perihelion. Their brightness can be seen occasionally even during the day.’Footnote 13 In 12 bce, Halley’s comet could be seen in the sky for approximately seven weeks from 26 August to 20 October.Footnote 14
Third, whereas actual stars are stationary from the vantage point of Earth, according to Matt 2.2, 9, the star of Bethlehem moved quickly: ‘rising’ and ‘stopping’. Kokkinos writes, ‘Comets move fast in their journey through the inner solar system: they move across the sky with a speed of about 10 degrees per day, moving from one constellation to the next every three or four days.’Footnote 15 Fourth, whereas the ‘star’ of Matthew 2 came to a perceptible stop over the city of Bethlehem (v. 10), actual stars cannot be said to rest over any specific place on Earth because they are too far away.Footnote 16 Kokkinos provides details:
The description that the star ‘stood over’ (that is, in astronomical parlance, ‘it reached its zenith’ directly above the observer), could only reasonably apply to a comet. It was regarded in this manner as early as the time of Origen (Against Celsus 1.58) and probably even earlier in the time of Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 19.2). One only has to compare Matt 2.9, ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον, ‘it stopped over the place where the child was’, with similar terminology in Dio Cassius 54.29.8, ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἄστεως αἰωρηθείς ‘hung over the city’ (describing the comet of 12 b.c., which stood over Rome at the time of Marcus Agrippa’s death), and Josephus (Jewish War 6.289), ὑπὲρ τὴν πόλιν ἄστρον ἔστη ‘a star stood over the city’ (describing the comet in a. d. 66 that stood over Jerusalem).Footnote 17
Vis-à-vis this hypothesis, Kokkinos addresses the chronology of Jesus’ life, successfully integrating a majority of evidence from the New Testament. In the course of his investigation, however, he is forced to dismiss as unreliable Luke’s reference to Jesus’ birth at the time of the census by Quirinius in 6 ce (Luke 2.3):
It is my belief that Luke was presented with a tradition, from a strong source, that placed the birth of Jesus at the time of a taxation assessment in Herod the Great’s Judea. Luke searched unsuccessfully in history for this taxation, and, unable to reject this tradition, he finally associated it with the well-known census of Quirinius. Unfortunately, the census he chose to link it to can today be decisively dated long after the death of Herod. I am assuming, therefore, that in his effort to fix the date of the Herodian taxation assessment, Luke erroneously identified it with the first Roman census of Judea undertaken by Quirinius.Footnote 18
Although Kotansky agrees with Kokkinos that the star of Bethlehem was the comet of 12 bce, he is, nevertheless, reluctant to dismiss any evidence out of hand. He, therefore, prefers to view the Synoptic Gospels as preserving two traditions about Jesus’ birth, one at the time of Halley’s comet in 12 bce and the other in 6 ce at the time of the census of Quirinius (Luke 2.2).Footnote 19 In the final footnote to his essay, he makes this point and, in the form of a question, offers a novel solution:
… it has been suggested that Jesus could have been born as late as 6 ce, based on Luke’s infamous reference to Quirinius. We have argued throughout that Jesus was born in 12 bce and that his ‘star’ was Halley’s comet of that same year. How does one ultimately reconcile the conflicting dates, of which only one can be correct? … Is it possible that Jesus indeed was born in 6 ce and that it was John who was born in 12 bce and thought to be the true ‘messianic’-king?Footnote 20
In this same footnote, Kotansky cites a passing reference by Kokkinos to the Mandaean Book of John – which states that ‘a comet flew over Judea’ at the time of the birth of John the Baptist (§18)Footnote 21 – and asks whether Matthew 2 might have applied a Baptist tradition similar to that of the Mandaean text to Jesus. Recently translated from Mandaic-Aramaic by Charles Häberl and James McGrath, the section of this text concerning the star reads as follows:
‘… I saw a star came upon Elizabeth, | upon elder father Zechariah, | the sun set and the lamps shined forth | and smoke wreathed the Temple | so that the earth shook from its place. | A shooting star burst over JerusalemFootnote 22 | and the moon shined forth during the day’. | He tossed dust upon his bare head, | and brought forth the Book of Dreams | seeing what is written within | and interprets them in his heart but not aloud | and explains them in a scroll, saying to them, | ‘Elizabeth is giving birth to a child! | A child is being born in Jerusalem! | Elizabeth is giving birth to a child! | Johannes is born in Jerusalem | and will be called a prophet in Jerusalem!’Footnote 23
In a blog on a related topic, McGrath observes similarities between the Mandaean text and the infancy narrative of the Gospel of Luke.Footnote 24 Further, he comments that reading Luke 1 and ‘skip(ping) the parts about Jesus’ suggests the likelihood of ‘an infancy story about John the Baptist before any was written for Jesus, and which influenced those about Jesus’, a conjecture held by others before him.Footnote 25 How might such a conjecture correlate with the hypothesis that the star of the Magi refers to Halley’s comet in 12 bce and the birth of John the Baptist?Footnote 26
If we think first of the Third Gospel, Luke 1.5 reports that John the Baptist’s birth occurred during the reign of Herod the Great (d. 4 bce), but then Luke 2.2 records Jesus’ birth at the time of the census by Quirinius (in 6 ce), an apparent contradiction if John and Jesus were near contemporaries.Footnote 27 However, like John 1.31, 33 (κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ‘I myself did not know him’) and Matt 11.12 (ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι, ‘from the days of John the Baptist until now’)Footnote 28 – which both imply that John was considerably older than Jesus – Luke 1.80 points to a separation plausibly even as great as a generation between the time of John’s childhood and his ἀνάδειξις (‘public appearance’) to Israel.Footnote 29 According to Luke 2.1, John’s ‘manifestation’ to Israel – not his birth – takes place at the time of Quirinius’ census. The phrase, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (‘in those days’) in 2.1 follows immediately upon Luke 1.80, differentiating the later time of the census from the earlier reign of Herod the Great (1.5).Footnote 30
Turning to the Gospel of Matthew, although the massacre of the innocents (Matt 2.16-18) under Herod the Great pertains (with difficulty) to the birth of Jesus rather than to John, this chapter corroborates our timeline by reporting Jesus’ birth and John’s ministry (Matt 3.1, Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας) at the time of Herod Archelaus (Matt 2.22).Footnote 31 Thinking of Archelaus’ deposition in 6 ce rather than the commencement of his reign in 4 bce, this datum corresponds to Luke’s report about John’s public appearance (Luke 1.80) and therefore to Jesus’ birth at the time of the census of Quirinius (Luke 2.1–7).Footnote 32 Matt 3.13, 16 announces Jesus’ baptism by John, as taking place τότε, an unknowable amount of time after the report about John’s ministry in 3.1, but accommodating Luke’s reference (3.1) to ‘the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius’ (28/29 ce).Footnote 33
If John were born in 12 bce, he would have been eighteen years old in 6 ce, the last year of Archelaus’ reign, precisely the age to be presented in public (Exod 30.14).Footnote 34 Chronologically, this matches the Slavonic additions to Josephus, which introduce John’s ministry during the reign of Archelaus (4 bce–6 ce).Footnote 35 Luke 3.1 reports that the ‘word of God’ comes to John ‘in the fifteenth year of the reign of emperor Tiberius’, that is, in 28 ce, twenty-two years after the commencement of his ministry (Matt 3.1). If John was born in 12 bce, he would have been forty years old when the ‘word of God’ came to him (Luke 3.2). If his ministry began at his public appearance in 6 ce, then the word of God’s arrival probably represents a turning point.Footnote 36 According to Luke 3.2–3, it represents the commencement of mass public baptism (cf. Matt 3.6). This final phase of John’s ministry – during which Jesus may have been baptised (at age ‘22’, in 28 ce, if born in 6 ce)Footnote 37 – would have lasted seven years until 35 ce when, at age forty-seven (cf. ‘not yet fifty’, recorded about Jesus in John 8.57), Herod Antipas arrested and killed John (Luke 3.19–20).Footnote 38
One might object that Mary’s conception took place under Herod the Great, but in fact, the angel Gabriel in Luke 1.35 does not specify such timing. Elizabeth’s blessing upon the fruit of Mary’s womb (Luke 1.42) does not necessarily imply that a pregnancy has already begun, tying both births to the reign of Herod the Great.Footnote 39 As the last line of the pericope states, Gabriel’s prediction ‘will come to pass’ (ἔσται τελείωσις), that is, at some unknowable time in the future (1.45).Footnote 40 Although to a lesser extent than John’s, the narrative is modelled after the birth of Isaac which took place at least a decade after its prediction.Footnote 41 The foetus leaps not at Jesus’ presence, but at the sound of Mary’s voice (1.41).Footnote 42 Ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν in 1.48 implies that the speaker has at least conceived,Footnote 43 but as Adolf von Harnack once argued, the variant, ‘Elizabeth’ for ‘Mary’ in v. 46 makes more sense not least because Elizabeth is between the sixth and ninth month of her pregnancy at that time, whereas Mary’s conception has only been predicted.Footnote 44 Furthermore, Luke 1.48 (ἐπέβλεψεν) echoes Elizabeth’s exclamation that God has ‘looked with favour’ upon her in 1.25 (ἐπεῖδεν) and 1.26 (τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ) tracks Elizabeth’s pregnancy (cf. Luke 1.24, μῆνας πέντε), stressing her expectant state and suggesting that she is the narrative’s first interest.Footnote 45
In addition to Luke 2.7 (Jesus’ birth at the time of Quirinius’ census in 6 ce), Kokkinos also regards the evidence provided by Luke 3.23 – Jesus ‘beginning at about thirty years’ (καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα) – as unreliable.Footnote 46 Must this datum also be dismissed? If Jesus was born in 6 ce and died in 36 ce, he would have been ‘about thirty’ (ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα) the year that he was killed,Footnote 47 his ministry lasting approximately one year.Footnote 48 Such a chronological scheme comports well with a variety of data. For example, the entire narrative of the Gospel of Mark can be squeezed into only a few weeks’ time.Footnote 49 Also, the punishment of crucifixion makes sense as a swift imperial response to Jesus’ perpetuation of the movement that John was killed to stamp out.Footnote 50 Gerard Mussies defends a year-long ministry for Jesus on the basis of Jewish and Samaritan sources.Footnote 51
And, other evidence supports our scheme. First, Luke 16.16 – ‘The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force’ – distances John and Jesus, placing John in an Israel of the past.Footnote 52 Second, if the advanced ages of John’s parents can be extricated from his birth narrative in Luke, Zechariah and Elizabeth seem to have belonged to a generation before Mary and Joseph, implying that John was significantly older than Jesus.Footnote 53 The two figures, John and Jesus are also separated geographically: John in Jerusalem and a city in the neighbouring hill country, and Jesus in Galilee, a topic explored below.Footnote 54
On our reading, Luke’s narrative about shepherds seeing angels (Luke 2.8–15) appears to be a theologised transferal of John’s comet in 12 bce to Jesus’ birth in 6 ce.Footnote 55 We note that, on account of its theological (not to mention rural) traits, this Lukan report is suspiciously unexposed to examination by proof – unlike Matthew’s report about the star for which reliable astronomical records could have been consulted.Footnote 56 We see thus that Luke’s chronology can be considered coherent from both a narrative and historical viewpoint.Footnote 57
In the third volume of New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, Tony Burke presents three additional texts with Baptist traditions that support a date of 12 bce for John’s birth: The Decapitation of John the Forerunner (Decap. Bapt.), The Birth of Holy John the Forerunner (Birth Bapt.) and The Martyrdom of Zechariah (Mart. Zech.).Footnote 58 Four examples from these texts pertain to our argument. First, The Decapitation of John the Forerunner, Recension B, 3.1 refers to John as ‘fifteen’ years old when he commences his ministry (Recension A, ‘thirty’). This is best explained by the assumption that his birth took place in 12 bce. If John is born in 12 bce, he is fifteen years old in 3 ce, and eighteen, as in Luke 1.80 and 2.1, in 6 ce. This timeline also matches the Slavonic additions to Josephus, noted already, by positioning John’s ministry during the reign of Archelaus (4 bce–6 ce).Footnote 59 This datum does not fit the overall chronology of either Recension A or Recension B of Decap. Bapt, and is, thus, probably a remnant of an older, independent tradition. Second, the reference in both Recensions A and B of Decap. Bapt. (5.2) to Herod Antipas (r. 4 bce–39 ce) summoning John at age ‘thirty-two’ also fits this schema.Footnote 60 Third, Recension B, 1.1 refers to the birth of Jesus at the time of ‘Herod the tetrarch’, likely denoting Archelaus (technically, ethnarch). This datum does not require but accommodates Jesus’ birth in 6 ce.Footnote 61 Finally, The Martyrdom of Zechariah shares much overlapping material with The Decapitation of John the Forerunner. Mart. Zech. 9.1 reports that John was ‘twelve’ during the reign of Archelaus, which corresponds, like Decap. Bapt.’s reference to John as ‘fifteen’, to John’s birth in 12 bce.Footnote 62
In view of John’s operating at the time of Archelaus (4 bce–6 ce), G. R. S. Mead observes that, not only does this mean that John preached for almost thirty years (accepting John’s death ca. 35 ce), it means that John had to have been born early enough to be preaching between 4 bce and 6 ce.Footnote 63 If it were only in Archelaus’ last year that John began to preach (6 ce), John would have begun his preaching ministry when he was eighteen years old precisely as Luke 1.80 submits.Footnote 64 The profound length of John’s ministry (29 years if it began in 6 ce and he was killed at age 47 in 35 ce) could also explain why, for someone with disdain for apocalyptic movements, Josephus, nevertheless, reports sympathetically on John (Ant. 18.109–19).Footnote 65
Marcion, Origen (Cels. 1.58), the Toledoth Jeshu and the Old Slavonic History of Zacharias offer additional evidence for Jesus’ birth after the death of Herod the Great and contemporary with the census of Quirinius in 6 ce.Footnote 66 In sum, we are inclined to agree with Kotansky in his surmise that John’s birth took place at the time of Halley’s comet in 12 bce and Jesus’ birth took place at the time of the census of Quirinius in 6 ce.
3. Bethlehem
What, then, can be said of the Bethlehemic and messianic segments – according to Kotansky, intrusions in Matthew’s infancy narrative on a Zoroastrian core tradition?Footnote 67 If the source of Matt 2.1–23 originally concerned John and was adapted by Matthew for Jesus, would that explain the integration of these segments?
Kotansky argues that the original core of Matthew 2 consisted of Matt 2.1–3, 7–9a, 11–12, and 16. With respect to Bethlehem, he writes:
(Matthew), or a previous editor, has carefully integrated the Magi-material with the Bethlehem-traditions and messianic prophecy. The integration is rather complete, so we can no longer speak of a once independent, free-standing Greek ‘text’. Nevertheless, the removal of the extraneous ‘additions’ leaves a fairly uniform whole. With that said, a few comments on our ‘restored’ text seem in order: 1) ‘in Bethlehem in Judaea’ (2,1) must be extracted, as argued above, since this has nothing to do with the Magi’s historical search. Scholars have long been aware that John 7,27, 40–44 show, too, that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. Matt 2,1 parallels, as a doublet, the ‘birth’ at 2,18, and all of 2,18–25 makes no mention of Bethlehem. For the same reason ‘in Bethlehem’ must be removed in 2,8.16, since the search was more ‘global’ and time-consuming (hence, the Greek ‘in all the surrounding areas’—a remnant of the original text). … In 2,8 the core-text would have had a simple ‘sending out’, with no mention of Bethlehem.Footnote 68
With respect to these Bethlehem segments, we acknowledge that the location of John’s birth is unknown. That said, Luke 1.65 reports John’s birth in the ‘hill country, in a city of Judah’ (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ὀρεινῇ τῆς Ἰουδαίας).Footnote 69 Correspondingly, in Luke 1.39, Mary finds Elizabeth at home in ‘a Judean town in the hill country’ (εἰς τὴν ὀρεινὴν … εἰς πόλιν Ἰούδα). Which city is most likely implied? In Luke 2.4, Bethlehem is designated ‘of Judah’ (εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ).Footnote 70 Matt 2.6 also specifies Bethlehem as a city ‘in the land of Judah’ (καὶ σὺ Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα). Furthermore, according to Luke 1.5, Zechariah belonged to the priestly order of Abijah, son of Rehoboam, who fortified Bethlehem. John’s Davidic lineage, as reported in Luke 1.69, also corresponds to Bethlehem as David’s birthplace and the location of his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam 16.1–4, 18; 17.12; Luke 2.4, 11).Footnote 71 In short, the most likely location of John’s birth according to Synoptic tradition is Bethlehem – very close to Ein Kerem today, a neighbourhood of Jerusalem approximately eight miles from Bethlehem. Ein Kerem was considered. the site of John’s birth since the fourth century.Footnote 72
Furthermore, the Protevangelium of James, regarded by some as a creative collation of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke – first mentioned by Origen (Comm. Matt. 10.17) and written sometime in the second half of the second century – provides non-canonical evidence of a connection between John and Bethlehem. Germane features of this work may be summarised. After sixteen chapters about the birth and betrothal of Mary, Prot. Jas. 17.1 reports Augustus’ declaration of a census.Footnote 73 This census is likely taken from Luke 2.1–2, although in this case rather than a registration of the whole world,Footnote 74 Bethlehemites alone are required to register (Prot. Jas. 17.1).Footnote 75 Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem to be enrolled, but midway through their journey – that is, not yet in Bethlehem (Prot. Jas. 17.10) – Mary dismounts and gives birth in a cave (Prot. Jas. 19.16).Footnote 76
Following (1) the arrival of a baby boy, (2) a midwife’s verification of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and (3) the appearance of a woman named Salome (chapter 20) – just as Joseph and Mary are about to depart for their home (i.e., their home is not in Bethlehem), a great commotion arises.Footnote 77 As in the Mandaean Book of John, the Protevangelium reports ‘an incredibly brilliant star shining among these stars, (so bright) it dimmed them so that they could not be seen’ (21.8) and Magi arrive to worship the king (Prot. Jas. 21.3, 7–8). Like Matthew 2, it is unclear whether the king is a newborn, although it is implied that the child was born at the time of the ‘incredibly brilliant star’.Footnote 78 The text does not cite but seems to know (‘for that is what is written’, 21.5) the conflation of Mic 5.2 with 2 Sam 5.2 from Matt 2.6, which lends messianic relevance to Bethlehem as David’s hometown (1 Sam 16.1–13).Footnote 79
Hearing the reason for the visit of the Magi, Herod issues an order to find the child (Prot. Jas. 21.9).Footnote 80 As in Matt 2.11, the Magi locate the child and present him with gold, frankincense and myrrh (Prot. Jas. 21.11).Footnote 81 In response to Herod’s threat (Prot. Jas. 22.2), Mary flees to hide her child in an ox-manger (Prot. Jas. 22.4),Footnote 82 after which the focus abruptly shifts to John, who assumes the role of protagonist for the remaining chapters of the book. Different from Jesus who was born in a cave halfway to Bethlehem (Prot. Jas. 17.10, 19.16), John was born in Bethlehem, denoted by the following two narrative elements. First, Herod explicitly seeks John, not Jesus, in response to the prediction that the king will be born in that city: ‘But when Elizabeth heard that they were looking for John, she took him and went up into the hill-country and was searching for any place to hide him’ (Prot. Jas. 22.3).Footnote 83 Herod might seek Jesus, but he certainly seeks John and, as a result of this targeted pursuit, John assumes a mixture of royal and messianic traits while maintaining his priestly lineage.Footnote 84 Second, John’s mother, Elizabeth heads from the location of his birth to the hills to hide John (22.5), implying that his birth took place in the city.Footnote 85 The Protevangelium then reports the death of John’s father, Zechariah.Footnote 86 Simeon – whose prophecy in Luke (1.28–32) like Anna’s (v. 38) corresponds in certain aspects to Zechariah’s blessing over John (Luke 1.68–79)Footnote 87 – is chosen to replace Zechariah as priest in the Temple (Prot. Jas. 24.13).
Concerning Prot. Jas. 22.5–24.14, McGrath postulates that these chapters must have been ‘lifted straight out of a source available to the creator of the Proto-Gospel about John the Baptist’; and, because the text draws from Matthew’s infancy narrative (Herod, Magi, etc.), McGrath now asks whether Matthew, like Luke, drew on a source about John to compose his infancy narrative about Jesus.Footnote 88 For our purposes, it suffices to acknowledge the corroborating evidence that this text provides for the association of John with the star of Bethlehem tradition in Matthew 2 and the hypothesis that he, not Jesus, was born in Bethlehem under Herod the Great at the time of the appearance of Halley’s comet in 12 bce.Footnote 89
Moreover, the Protevangelium is not the only extra-canonical source that supports this thesis. The pre-fifth century (perhaps as early as the late-second or early-third) Revelation of the Magi composed in Syriac retells the story of Matthew 2 from the perspective of twelve or more Magi, descendants of Adam’s third child, Seth, from the mythological land of Shir.Footnote 90 They see a star in the Cave of Treasures on the Mountain of Victories where it appears in the form of a small, luminous human being (Rev. Magi 12.3–7). They follow this star to Bethlehem where it transforms into the infant Jesus, although he is never identified as such (Rev. Magi 18.1). About the identification of the star as Jesus, Brent Landau writes: the star is ‘clearly Christ, but his precise identity is never explicitly revealed’.Footnote 91 Intrigued by this fact, Landau presents his interpretation that, for this anonymous writer, the Christ figure cannot be identified with Jesus of Nazareth exclusively:Footnote 92 ‘The case of the Magi, then, raises the possibility that Christ has appeared to many people and yet not revealed himself as Jesus Christ.’Footnote 93 Landau further extrapolates from the star’s polymorphism a ‘more positive view of non-Christian religious traditions than any other early Christian writing’.Footnote 94 We point out, however, that the text may know a rival tradition such as the Protevangelium of James identifying John as the glorious star-child, ‘the ancient light perfecting the will of the Father of majesty’ (Rev. Magi 19.1), praised by angels (20) and commissioning witnesses to the truth (21.5), the author thus seeking an ameliorating position not among all religions, but between ‘Christians’ and ‘Baptists’, a rivalry more fitting to the period of this text’s composition and attested in the NT canon in Acts 18.24 and 19.1–7.Footnote 95
In addition to this ‘positive’ evidence, it is widely recognised that a few passages in the NT indicate that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. The angel Gabriel was sent to Nazareth to predict to Mary the birth of her son Jesus (εἰς πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρέθ, (‘to a city in Galilee called Nazareth’, Luke 1.26). Luz notes that Matt 1.18–25 does not narrate in detail the birth story of Jesus in Bethlehem, it only states that it took place there after the fact, as an afterthought. The actual birth narrative, he rightly acknowledges, is missing, and Matt 2.1 (τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας) is a transitional verse intended to bridge this ‘narrative gap’.Footnote 96 Luz also refers to the introduction of Bethlehem in this verse as abrupt.Footnote 97 Furthermore, Matt 13.54 refers to Nazareth as Jesus’ fatherland,Footnote 98 a point also made in John 1.46 when Nathanael rejects Philip’s news that he and the others have discovered the messiah by referring to Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth.Footnote 99 John 7.40–4 too reports a controversy that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, beginning, ‘Surely the messiah does not come from Galilee, does he?’ (μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς ἔρχεται;)
4. The Special Materials
Thus far, we have argued that behind the legendary material of the Synoptic infancy narratives lie a few historical traditions that John’s birth took place at the time of Halley’s comet in 12 bce and Jesus’ birth took place at the time of the census of Quirinius in 6 ce. In this final section, we briefly explore how segments of Special M narrative material in Matthew 1 and 2 support this thesis, insofar as they appear to reflect a Baptist source: (1) the massacre of the innocents (Matt 2.16–18); (2) the identity of the ‘Nazorean’ (Matt 2.23); (3) the citation of 2 Samuel 5 (Matt 2.6); and (4) the Matthean genealogy (1.12–17).Footnote 100
Multiple sources, including the Old Slavonic History of Zacharias and the commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, associate the massacre of the innocents (Matt 2.16–18) with John.Footnote 101 In addition, clear correspondence of this pericope with Pharaoh’s command to kill all male children at the time of Moses’ birth (Exod 1.15–22) indicates that the original subject was regarded as a prophet like Moses. Jesus characterises John as just such a figure in Matt 11.9–11: ‘What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet (περισσότερον προφήτου).…Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist’ (cf. Luke 7.24–8).Footnote 102 In his exploration of motifs about Moses in the nativity legends, Schonfield points to their proximity to New Testament narratives about John, speculating that these tales provided the background for John’s birth story in Luke. He summarises a significant number of parallels as follows:
Amram and Jochebed, like Zachariah and Elizabeth, are of the house of Levi a worthy pair, and well-stricken in years; for according to tradition Jochebed was an hundred and thirty years old when she conceived Moses. In both cycles of legend Magi predict to the king the birth of the wonder child, who thereupon decrees the slaughter of all the male children. There is an annunciation to Amram similar to the one made to Zachariah. In each case their wives are promised sons who will deliver their people from oppression. Both Moses and John are concealed from the officers of the king.Footnote 103
Clear association of John with Moses in Matthew might thus suggest that the Matthean massacre of the innocents originated as a Baptist tradition.
Matt 2.23 provides a second case for consideration. The source and meaning of this prooftext about a person from Nazareth called a ‘Nazorean’ (Ναζωραῖος) is unclear:Footnote 104 ‘There he made his home in a town called Nazareth (Ναζαρέτ), so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean”’ (ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται). The passage supports the claim that the Messiah will come from Nazareth, but no proof-text is provided. Luz argues that the writer uses the plural (διὰ τῶν προφητῶν) because he could not identify the quotation transmitted to him.Footnote 105 Nevertheless, Luz believes that Judg 13.5,Footnote 106 7 and 16.7 (Ναζιραῖος) are most likely intended.Footnote 107 Assuming that Luz is correct, Matthew could have modified Ναζιραῖος in Judg 13.5 to Ναζωραῖος, understanding Ναζωραῖος as synonymous with Ναζαρηνός and, on account of this adjustment, omitted the citation information.Footnote 108 Whatever explanation one accepts for the reference, the passage most likely refers to the Nazirite vow, associated in Luke 1.15 and 7.33 with John, not Jesus.
The third Matthean passage for consideration as Baptist in origin involves the citation from Micah 5 in Matt 2.6. We begin by recalling that, in addition to Luke’s reference to Jesus’ birth at the time of the census by Quirinius in 6 ce (Luke 2.2; see above), Kokkinos rejects as unreliable Luke’s reference to Jesus as thirty years old (Luke 3.23), noting that it may derive from 2 Sam 5.4 (LXX): ‘The figure might have been taken from 2 Sam 5.4, for it is appropriate that the Son of David should inaugurate his activities at David’s age. Or, one has to consider the possibility that Luke might have originally written “forty” instead of “thirty”.’Footnote 109 The Gospel of Matthew also demonstrates an interest in 2 Samuel 5. In the second formula quotation occurring in Matt 2.6, Mic 5.1–3 (LXX) is combined with 2 Sam 5.2, 7 (LXX) probably to underscore the author’s point that a great leader from Bethlehem will shepherd God’s people as David did.Footnote 110 Whereas Micah’s prediction emphasises Bethlehem as the paradoxical source of salvation, 2 Sam 5.2 and 7.7 highlight the city’s Davidic association. Matthew, it seems, engages 2 Samuel 5 to complement the Davidic lineage of Jesus’ genealogy in chapter one with David’s birthplace.Footnote 111 Since 2 Sam 5.2 is employed, one might ask why 5.4 concerning David’s age was not included – especially given that Luke reports this tradition.Footnote 112 If Jesus’ birth takes place at the time of the ‘star of Bethlehem’ during the reign of Herod the Great, that is, in 12 bce, as implied by Matt 2.2, 9, then Jesus would have been ‘30’ in the year 18 ce. In such a case, either his ministry would have lasted almost two decades (d. 36 ce) or, if only a one- to three-year ministry is implied, the tradition that he was brought before Caiaphas (Matt 26.57–68) and executed under Pilate (i.e., 36 ce, Matt 27.1–26) is proven false – each, unviable options. As desirable a tradition as ‘the age of thirty like David’ must have been for Matthew, it was, therefore, impossible to adopt. The tradition does, however, make sense if it pertains to a child born in 6 ce, publicly executed in the year 36 ce – the same year that he ‘began’ (Luke 3.23). In sum, the ‘thirty-year-old’ (2 Sam 5.4 LXX) tradition corresponds well to the census of Quirinius but not to the star of the Magi, explaining why it is found in Luke but not in Matthew.
Finally, correspondences between Special M and Baptist traditions might also explain aspects of the Matthean genealogy in chapter 1 (Matt 1.1–17). Jacob, Judah, Boaz, Obed, Ruth, Jesse (1 Sam 17.12), David (Luke 1.69), Rehoboam and Abijah (associated with John in Luke 1.5) all hail from Bethlehem – a city closely associated with John. In addition, Zerubbabel (Matt 1.13), whom Matthew situates after the deportation to Babylon, must be the figure who led the first group of Jews back from exile. If this is correct, and we assume that the third division of the genealogy persists in its commitment to Bethlehem, then the otherwise unknown names in v. 12–16 may represent a lost list of the one hundred plus people from Bethlehem who returned as reported in Ezra 2.21 and Neh 7.26.Footnote 113 Some of these names of ostensible members of the Davidic line (prior to Joseph) possess namesakes in the south.Footnote 114
It is acknowledged that the correspondences between Special M material in Matthew 1–2 and Baptist traditions identified here are of varying argumentative weight. At a minimum, though, they strengthen the case for reconciling otherwise irreconcilable chronological data by admitting the conversion of Baptist sources as a redactional strategy of the NT evangelists.Footnote 115
5. Conclusion
A timeline in which Jesus is (1) born under Herod the Great, at the time of a great comet (Matt 2.2, 9), in the year of the census of Quirinius (Luke 2.2), (2) commences ministry at age thirty (Luke 3.23), (3) engages in ministry for one to three years, (4) and is put to death under Pontius Pilate presents irresolvable conflicts. If, however, Kokkinos and Kotansky are correct that the star of Bethlehem refers to Halley’s comet of 12 bce, then the two implied Synoptic dates of 12 bce (Matt 2.1–23) and 6 ce (Luke 2.1–7) for Jesus’ birth can be reconciled provided the earlier one, as Luke 1.5 implies, originally belonged to John the Baptist.Footnote 116 The Mandean Book of John and the Protevangelium of James offer additional evidence of a comet at the birth of John. When read as Baptist traditions, Bethlehemic and messianic segments in Matthew 2 – at odds with certain traditions about Jesus – provide an ideal complement. If John is born under Herod the Great in 12 bce, and John’s life is, either historically or within the traditional storyline (prophet like Moses), threatened by Herod the Great, then the report in Mark 6.16 that Antipas fears that John has been resurrected from the dead, makes sense as a son perpetuating his father’s old antipathy.Footnote 117 Separating the assorted data into births of two different figures allows us to dispel various chronological tensions without rejecting pertinent data outright.Footnote 118 Our thesis challenges the standard three-year ministry of Jesus and raises afresh the question of the location of Jesus’ birth, but such refinements belong to the broadly conciliatory solution that the competing gospel birth narratives reflect two messianic figures, John and Jesus, themselves held in differing positions of authority by their followers and consequently by those who wrote about them nearly two millennia ago.Footnote 119
Competing interests
The author declares none.
