Conclusion: Historical Plausibility

Conclusion: Historical Plausibility
The previous two chapters have demonstrated that Matthew’sprimary purpose in
writing his account of the birth of Jesus was to present Jesus as the virgin-born Son of
God but also the Messianic Son of David. Although known asthe Jewish Messiah, he
was received by Gentile magi and rejected by Jewish leaders. Matthew’s chief source for
his birth narrative was probably Joseph. The previous two chapters have demonstrated
that Matthew received what he considered historical inf ormation to write his narrative
and highlighted the theological impact of the beginnings of Jesus the Christ. The current
chapter explored whether or not the events of Matthew 1–2 could be considered
historically plausible from a modern perspective.
Because of the supernatural elements of the Matthean birth narrative, it has been
pointed out that much depends on one’s openness to the possibility of the supernatural
when determining historicity. On the other hand, there area number of points in the
narrative that can be examined in light of history and science. The genealogy of Jesus,
while different between the two Gospel accounts, is still plausible if Matthew traces
Joseph’s genealogy and Luke traces the genealogy of Mary (because her father had no
male offspring). This explanation best accounts for the dramatic differences between the
two lists. The common elements between the two Gospel accounts also points toward a
virgin birth at Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great, most likely in the latter
249
half of 5 B.C.based on various elements within the Gospels (Matthew 2; Luke 3; John
7:42).
The magi are most likely from the region of Arabia because of early attestation as
such and the tendency to refer to this region as those “from the east.” The star they
followed to Judea was probably of a supernatural kind since no natural explanation can
account for its various actions, particularly the way it points out a specific house in
Bethlehem. The actions of Herod the Great in slaughtering the children of Bethlehem is
historically plausible despite the omission of the event by Josephus since it would have
involved such a small number of children but is still very much in character with a
maniacal and paranoid king as he is described in Josephus. There have been extra-biblical
accounts that could also support a sojourn in Egypt and this would have been a safe
haven from King Herod. The settlement in Nazareth of Galilee agrees with the rest of the
Gospel accounts who describe Jesus as being “of Nazareth.”
While there are many scholars who quickly dismiss the possibility of historicity in
the birth narratives, this chapter has presented an alternate view. Matthew, while focusing
on the theological implications of the birth, can still be trusted as writing not only what
he saw as historical, but also what could actually have been historical within a worldview
open to the supernatural. In other words, there is no reasonto dismiss the historical
plausibility of the Matthean birth narrative other thanan aversion to the supernatural.
250
CONCLUSION