-
Did Jesus Have a Human Father?Awake!—1971 | December 22
-
-
The Testimony of the Gospels
The complaint is made that the only records we have of Jesus’ birth are those of Matthew and Luke, but then those two are the only ones that tell us of Jesus’ infancy and early life. Mark doubtless left out the facts of Jesus’ birth and infancy in the interest of brevity, and the apostle John did so since he was chiefly concerned with supplementary matters not covered by the other Gospel writers.
Matthew tells us that Mary became pregnant by the spirit of God before she had intercourse with Joseph, to whom she was engaged. He also records how Joseph reacted to Mary’s being pregnant and how God’s angel assured him of how it came about. Moreover, the account makes the point that Joseph did not have intercourse with her until she had given birth to Jesus. (Matt. 1:18-25) Luke informs us of the very same facts, but all from Mary’s viewpoint or aspect. Luke and Matthew have about a dozen points in common. (Luke 1:26-35) Clearly, as far as Matthew and Luke are concerned, God, not some human, was Jesus’ Father. Even Mark might be said to testify indirectly to this fact. How so? In that, instead of recording that the people were asking, “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” he reports them as asking, “This is the carpenter the son of Mary . . . is it not?”—Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3.
Further testifying to Jesus’ having God, not some human, as his Father were the voices heard from heaven at the time of Jesus’ baptism and at the time of his transfiguration, saying: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” What stronger evidence could we want that Jesus had God, not some human, as his Father?—Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:10, 11; 9:7; Luke 3:21, 22; 9:35.
-
-
Did Jesus Have a Human Father?Awake!—1971 | December 22
-
-
Then again, many attack the virgin birth of Jesus on the basis that the first two chapters of Matthew and of Luke were added at a later time, and by some other hand. But there is absolutely no basis for this claim. For one thing, the writing style of the chapters in question is exactly the same as that of subsequent chapters. Note, for example, Matthew’s many references to the Hebrew Scriptures, a characteristic of his, and Luke’s medical language in these two chapters, a characteristic of his. Nor is there any manuscript evidence to support such claims. For example, there is evidence that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53–8:11 were added by a later hand; but there just is no manuscript testimony for impugning the authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke. Neither the oldest Greek-manuscripts nor the versions or translations hint of such a thing. This is further supported by the fact that the early postapostolic writers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Origen and others, all accepted the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth from a virgin. As one authority puts it: “The witness of the Fathers to the virginal conception is unanimous and unquestioned.”a
The fact that the most noted vellum manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures go back only to the early fourth century has been used as an argument by some that the chapters in question might not have appeared in the original writings. But, in view of the other even older manuscripts extant, Sir Frederic Kenyon, in his book The Bible and Archaeology, said: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible. . . . Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
-