Jesus Vertical: A Common Man's Search for the Divine Through the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

By George Bocca

In this penetrating, sometimes irreverent and often humorous book, the writings of the apostles are explored in a search for the true "Word of God".

Here the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as the letters from other apostles who witnessed the life of Jesus Christ are evaluated using an unconventional but simple approach.

This simple method allows any reader to separate the obviously true from the fictitious to arrive at a correct image of Jesus Christ.

The reader will find the results presented quite surprising and thought provoking.

Jesus Vertical is an illuminating search for the divine, for the true "Word of God".

• Language: English
• Publisher: Austin Macauley Publishers
• Release date: Nov 30, 2021
• ISBN: 9781643782331

George Bocca

George Bocca is a former soldier and nurse. He has served in the regular army and the national guard. In the military he served in tanks from crewman to platoon sergeant. He is a former helicopter pilot and fixed wing pilot. As a civilian he worked as a nurse in the emergency room of a major hospital. He was raised in France, and is bilingual. He received a degree in anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh. He followed a woman to Texas and another woman kept him in Texas. He lives with his cat, Boots, in Austin.

Book preview

About the Author

George Bocca is a former soldier and nurse. He has served in the regular army and the national guard. In the military he served in tanks from crewman to platoon sergeant. He is a former helicopter pilot and fixed wing pilot. As a civilian he worked as a nurse in the emergency room of a major hospital. He was raised in France, and is bilingual. He received a degree in anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh. He followed a woman to Texas and another woman kept him in Texas. He lives with his cat, Boots, in Austin.

Dedication

This book is dedicated to two women—my wife, Janice Ann, with whom I spent the most incredible sixteen years of my life till she passed away on July 3, 2012; and to my friend Laurence, Azario-Atlan, who is French, Jewish and from north Africa and who walks on this planet only because when France fell to the Nazi death machine, her parents were living in Tunisia.

Copyright Information ©

George Bocca 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher.

Any person who commits any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

Ordering Information

Quantity sales: Special discounts are available on quantity purchases by corporations, associations, and others. For details, contact the publisher at the address below.

Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication data

Bocca, George

Jesus Vertical

ISBN 9781685620707 (Paperback)

ISBN 9781685620714 (Hardback)

ISBN 9781643782331 (ePub e-book)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021919987

www.austinmacauley.com/us

First Published 2021

Austin Macauley Publishers LLC

40 Wall Street, 33rd Floor, Suite 3302

New York, NY 10005

USA

[e-mail]

[phone]

Acknowledgment

Without the dedication of my editor, David Aretha, and Yellow Bird Editors, this book could not have been completed.

With the support of my friend, K. Oliver Rea, without whom the task would have been harder and taken much longer.

Prologue

The presence of evil in a world overseen by a benevolent god (or anti-theodicy) has been a headache for believers since the dawn of Christianity with answers that can only be described as pathetic. Personally I could not wrap my head around God demonstrating his almighty power by stopping the sun in the sky so that King Saul could lead a few thousand vermin-ridden pastoralists to victory over another few thousand vermin-ridden pastoralists while later in an immensely greater catastrophe, he ignores the murder of six million of his chosen people (and five million other undesirables) in the Holocaust. The problem of the Holocaust was particularly intimate for me, as my first romantic entanglement was with a young French woman who was Jewish, and when France fell to the Nazis in 1941, her family was in comparative safety in Tunisia.

Also, my wife had been diagnosed with a cancer that was to kill her, and in a pensive mood while driving in Austin, Texas, at the intersection of South Lamar and Ben White, I saw a window decal stating, God is Good. It was there, at that intersection, that I realized that the present theology was bankrupt.

The conflicts of good and evil, the death of my wife, and my first girlfriend brought me back to the Gospels in search of answers. As the old methodology provided no answers, I searched for a new one.

I had an advantage because unlike Judaism or Islam, Christianity has the courage of its convictions. Christianity is the only one of the monotheistic religions where we get a firsthand view of God. Here the Supreme Being walks among, and talks directly to his creation. Because in Christianity, God has shared his message directly with his creation. If there is an answer to be found for the problem of good and evil, Christianity is more likely to have a clearer answer than one from Judaism or Islam where the message only comes secondhand.

To get to the Divine Word, I looked for the core material of God’s words. I skipped Paul, who never saw Jesus. I skipped the other commentaries that cover the other nineteen books of the New Testament, as they did not give an answer either.

Having eliminated the irrelevant, I needed to discard the inaccuracies. There are inaccuracies in the four Gospels. For example, during the trial of Jesus, the Gospels are in agreement that Peter was in the courtyard of the Temple and he was the closest to Jesus, but behind the doors and walls, no one knew what happened. The four Gospels give four different and irreconcilable stories.

As we discard the irrelevant, as we discard the inaccuracies, we get closer to the pure Divine Word.

We accept the Nicene Creed, the belief that underlies Christianity. We accept divine omniscience that God is all powerful, omniscient, where no knowledge is unknown to him and no act is impossible to perform and we assume that Jesus is God.

Then we use the following to evaluate the Gospels.

Logic: We examine the logic of the story itself; for example, when Matthew claims that the saints rose from their sleep, walked the streets of Jerusalem, and were witnessed by many. It is not dead people walking the streets that are illogical as everything is possible for God. What is not logical is that dead saints cannot precede the saint-maker.

Reliability: Reliability depends on witnesses. There are two parts to this. The first is the number of Gospel writers chronicling one story, and the second is the number of witnesses inside the narrated event. The reliability takes both. In the case of Jesus spending forty days and nights in the desert, three Gospel writers cover this, so that is one element of reliability. The same reliability applies to the story of Joseph of Arimathea, which is covered by a number of Gospel writers. A story can be accepted on its own even if narrated by one writer, if that story is consistent, coherent, and rational. On the other hand, a story told by a single writer that claims the intervention of the divine needs to be looked at with more attention. As Carl Sagan said, Extreme claims require extreme evidence. In other words, a simple human act done by Jesus and narrated by one Gospel writer may be acceptable, but a divine miracle narrated by a single Gospel writer may not.

Historical evidence: The lack of or presence of historical evidence will affect credibility.

Simplicity: The Gospels are stories for the poor and the ill-educated. If a Gospel story needs theological and biblical scholars to explain it, it does not mean that it is false but it is most likely, unlikely. The God of the Gospels talks to the common man and woman; thus, simplicity is more likely than complexity.

Unrepresentative: Stories or statements that were reported, yet so out of the ordinary for the context, should be viewed as true. For example, the story of Caesar and God is so radical, it has to be true.

Faith: The need for faith for explanation is not exclusionary, but it is not a mandate for actuality.

Prophecy: The examination of prophecy is the ultimate test. Everything else can fail, but the all-knowing divine can prophesize accurately and the accuracy of the prophecy is the proof of the divine.

These tools will allow the reader the opportunity to reshape the story of Jesus Christ, keep the divine, and discard the myths and inaccuracies. And as we discard the inaccuracies, we have to discard some well-entrenched beliefs as well.

Chapter 1

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed was accepted at the Council of Nicea in 325CE. It is the Christian statement of belief.

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father (and the Son); who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

Comment: The Nicene Creed states the beliefs underlying Christianity, a divine Jesus coequal to God the same a God as God is Jesus.

Chapter 2

The Pre-Ministry Narrative

1. Genealogies of Jesus Christ

There were two genealogies of Jesus Christ, one in Matthew and one in Luke. Immediately it has given some headache to religious thinkers.

Matthew: 

1:1 – 16: ¹The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham. ²Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren. ³And Judas begat Pharez; and Zara of Thamar; and Pharez begat Esrom; And Esrom begat Aram. ⁴And Aram begat Aminadad; and Aminadad begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon. ⁵And Salomon begat Boaachab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse. ⁶And Jesse begat David the King; and David the King begat Solomon of her that was the wife of Urias. ⁷And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa. ⁸And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias. ⁹And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias. ¹⁰And Ezekais begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias. ¹¹And Josias begat Jakim; and Jakim begat Jechonias and his brethren about the time they were carried away to Babylon.¹² And after they were carried away into Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiedl begat Zorobabel.¹³And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor.¹⁴And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud.¹⁵And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob.¹⁶And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus that is called Christ.

Luke:3:23 – 38: 

²³And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being as men supposed the son of Joseph, which was the son of Eli, ²⁴The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, ²⁵The son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Naum, the son of Esli, the son of Nagge, ²⁶The son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Naum, the son of Esli, the son of Nagge, ²⁷The son of Joanna, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, the son of Neri, ²⁸the son of Melchin, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, ²⁹the son of Jesse, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, ³⁰the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, ³¹the son of Melea, the son of Mainan, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, ³² the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, ³³the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Esrom, the son of Pharez, the son of Judah, ³⁴The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Thara, the son of Nachor, ³⁵the son of Saruch, the son of Ragau, the son Phalec, the son of Eber, the son of Sala, ³⁶the son of Cainana, the son of Arphazad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, ³⁷the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Maleleel, the son of Cainan, ³⁸the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Mark: 

No genealogy

John: 

No genealogy

Comment: Matthew starts by planting Jesus solidly in the prophetic line. Jesus’s genealogy is from the patriarch Abraham, through King David and to Jesus. That is 2,000 years! To believe that an uneducated carpenter going through wars, with invasions by the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Persians, to name just a few, then to add pestilence and migrations that one could remember back 2,000 years is preposterous. Most of us today with extensive writing and documentation would have a hard time getting more than a few of our ancestors; even a society with a solid oral tradition, 2,000 years is not possible.

Still not to be outdone by Matthew, Luke’s genealogy extends all the way to Adam and Eve. According to James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, who calculated the date of creation as 4,004 BC (possibly on Saturday, the 22nd of October), this chronology goes back 4,000 years!

Also, both genealogies are different.

If a clear genealogy had been available, both authors’ genealogies would have been the same, or so close it would be acceptable. It is not the case; Matthew and Luke’s genealogies have nothing in common. The two authors cannot even get Jesus’ grandfather correct as one states that Jesus’ grandfather was one named Jacob, while the other is Eli. They cannot get the son of David correct either as in one it is through Solomon, the other through Nathan, and yet the authors can get the descendant of Abraham straight. As both genealogies are unbelievably long and different, what can be really concluded from the direct reading and without interpretation? They are made up.

That they are different was sometimes explained that one list is via Joseph, the other via Mary. This would be odd, considering that both would have issued from David and rejoined 2,000 years later. Also, the claim of the female lineage through Mary is unlikely as the Jewish society was extremely patriarchal and women were not valued much more than cattle. To keep a lineage of a creature whose sole right was to have babies is so improbable as to be dismissed. Finally, to dismiss this theory, both lineages are male and stop at Joseph, not one at Joseph or one at Mary.

To berate the point and back to the problems in the genealogies, if the equivalent of Matthew’s genealogy for the present-day reader it would be the equivalent to trace our ancestry from the present day all the way down to the time of Christ. In Luke the equivalent would be to be able to trace our ancestry to the middle/late Bronze Age or the middle kingdom of Egypt and the Babylonian empire!

The conclusion is evident: The genealogies of Jesus are not just implausible, but impossible and just made up to fit in an ad posteriori to prophetic writings of the Old Testament, and as such the evidence from the genealogies can be dismissed It is most likely that this genealogy was concocted to add legitimacy to the claims of Davidic descent and to add awe to Christ’s story.

One way to keep believers from looking closely and noticing the ridiculously different genealogies is evidently never to present the genealogies at the same time and then envelop the reader into a fog of mind-numbing boredom and irrelevant names. The reader then will give credence to the Churches’ statements on the writings versus the content of the writings.

2. The Annunciations to Joseph and Mary and the Angel’s Prophecies

Matthew: 

1:18 – 21: "¹⁸Now the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: When as his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. ¹⁹Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. ²⁰ But while he thought these things, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, the son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. ²¹And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt called his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. ²²And all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which is spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying.

Luke:1:26 – 35:  

²⁶And in the sixth month, the Angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, ²⁷To a virgin affianced to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸And the Angel went in unto her, and said, hail thou that art freely beloved, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. ²⁹And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and thought what manner of salutation that should be. ³⁰Then the Angel said unto her: ‘Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favor with God. ³¹For lo, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bear a son, and shall call his name JESUS. ³²He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. ³³And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom shall be no end.’ ³⁴Then said Mary unto the Angel: ‘How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ ³⁵ And the Angel answered, and said unto her: ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow there; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God’.

Mark: 

No annunciation

John: 

No annunciation

Comments: The annunciation of Jesus’ birth comes to Joseph in the dream of an unnamed angel making the announcement, a virgin birth, as well as the fulfillment of a prophecy.

The annunciation is given in person by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary, a virgin who will have a virgin birth and the prediction of the future: Son of most high, the throne of David and the rule over the house of Jacob for eternity.

Two different narratives, with no witnesses and in addition to which the two other Gospels do not think that a message from God is important enough to be mentioned. If Matthew and Luke’s story were a well-established fact, it would seem that Mark and John would have entered this into their Gospels. That one Gospel missed the annunciation to the Virgin and the other missed the dream of Joseph seems a little strange. Still, it would be stretching the imagination that this would happen. So while we review the Gospels we have two different stories in two Gospels, and two Gospels don’t even mention the momentous event.

There is also only one prophecy mentioned and one prediction given. It would seem that the prophecy would have been written posteriorly. A virgin birth is a big deal; after all, we have celebrated this for the last 2,000 years. A true virgin birth would be earth-shaking, and would have been such a powerful tool to confirm to the people the divine nature of the child, yet two out of the four Gospels don’t mention it.

Also, who was there at the bedside or mangerside that would have done a pelvic examination of Mary to make sure that the hymen was intact? The corroborating person is just not mentioned. Shepherds are mentioned, magi are mentioned, but a midwife is not mentioned. It is just hard to imagine the crowd of dirty shepherds around the birthing bed looking and manipulating Mary’s genitalia.

Then there is the issue of being without sin. Some have argued that the only way Mary could have been born without sin is that her mother was also sinless. As there are no signs of Mary being a divine being brought to the earth by some other divine being, one has to accept that she was also born from a sinless person. As this argument would have to be repeated with her mother, and then this woman’s mother and this woman’s mother as well. This long list of immaculate conceptions and virginal births would have had to have been documented somewhere in the ancient writing, and they are not. The next step with this argument if we push it to its logical conclusion is that the line of Mary was a sinless line that had to go back to Genesis. This, then, means that there were two lines that emerged from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and the line of sin, and an unknown line, a sinless line, that somehow also made it out of Eden through the funnel of the flood and ended with Mary. The theological arguments of both would be so complicated that it is easier to think that the virgin birth was added by the writers of the Gospels at the time of the writings in order to validate Jesus’ divinity.

The intensity of the virgin birth is so powerful an image it has motivated religions for two millennia. Yet it did not impress two of the four Gospel writers. As difficult as it is for a Catholic to believe that billions of believers could be wrong, with the material given, there is no logic in the virgin birth as presented in the Gospels. This was too much of a divine proof that it could not have been overlooked by two of the four writers. One cannot find more powerful proof of divinity than virgin birth, healing leprosy, and resurrection from the dead. Yet one is not impressive enough to warrant an entry in two of the four Gospels. With the addition of the unreliability of the narrators and contradictory stories, how logical would the virgin birth be? Evidently for God it is not impossible. In this case using these writings, one is left with the conclusion that God did not perform the miracle of the Virgin birth. Now immaculate conception, that is definitely in the realm of possibility, but harder to substantiate and one has to admit not quite as impressive.

Then Matthew narrates a prophecy, it is unclear if the prophecy is worded by the writers of Matthew or if it is the Angel of the Lord that is saying this. The authorship can be described as uncertain.

Matthew 1:23: 

²³Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel, which is by interpretation, God with us.

Mark: 

No prophecy of virgin birth and naming Emmanuel

Luke: 

No prophecy of virgin birth and naming Emmanuel

John: 

No prophecy of virgin birth and naming Emmanuel

Comment: Here an Angel of the Lord, a divine being, brings a message from God and three of the four Gospel writers ignore it. There is also the belief that the translation of the Old Testament may have been incorrect and virgin birth was mistranslated from … A young woman will be with child… The Matthew writers quote from Isaiah 7:14. The full quote would go from 7:14 – 16. Here are the full quotes from two different Bibles.

Isaiah 7:14-16: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

The Thompson Chain-reference Bible, 4th ed. 1964

From the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Thomas Nelson Pub 1989 Isaiah 7:14-16

Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

Of twenty-seven Bibles evaluated, twenty-three use the term virgin and three use the term young woman. Another abnormality is that of the four Gospel writers three of them seem to miss this momentous prophecy in the sacred writings.

Besides the problem of the virginal birth described above, by its own self Matthew’s prophecy is not very impressive. Jesus Christ is never referred to in the Gospel as Emmanuel. Emmanuel or Immanuel is mentioned three times in the Old and New Testaments. The last is in Matthew’s Gospel. So what type of prophecy is this? Besides the dubious virgin giving birth this is pretty much a non-prophecy. A real solid prophecy would have been a little more impressive.

Furthermore, the angel who appeared to Joseph, one sentence above Matthew 1:23, instructs Joseph to name the child Jesus. She will bear a son and you will call him Jesus. It does not instruct Joseph to name him Immanuel (Matthew 1:21). It is really hard to reconcile the two sets of information provided by Matthew that are only two verses apart. I am sure that theologians worked Esher-like mazes of rationalizations to cast these two as one. But if it is the creator of the universe that cannot get the names correctly, it is not inspiration for his abilities.

A cynic would say that if enough prophecies are produced, eventually one will fall close enough to be used.

This does not complete the comments on this section, for Luke also had a prophecy. This one is given to Mary via the Archangel Gabriel and this is the prophecy: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Luke’s prophecy has been understood as a symbolic prophecy. But if we are taking Archangel Gabriel word for word, I am sure that he did not try to explain to an illiterate peasant woman the theological complexity and symbolism of his prophecy, and being a superior creation he would understand that Mary would probably take this message literally. If he intended to give Mary an allegorical message he was being clueless and cruel. If he gave her a concrete message, he was being clueless and lying or wrong.

The Archangel’s prophecy even in a symbolic sense remains problematic; it is impossible for us to reconcile dogma with Archangel Gabriel’s prophecy. There is no father David, there is no Davidic line left that is known, the DNA is spread in a huge population, Jesus did not produce an heir, and in Israel the rule of king has been replaced by a democracy and the heart of Christianity is not in Israel anymore. So Archangel Gabriel failed in the concrete as well as the metaphorical.

Not very good on the divine omniscience.

3. Two Stories of Joseph

Matthew and Luke have two different stories for Joseph.

Matthew: 

1:18 – 21: ¹⁸Now the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: When as his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. ¹⁹Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. ²⁰ But while he thought these things, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, the son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. ²¹And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke: 2:4 – 5: 

⁴And Joseph also went up from Galilee out of a city called Nazareth into Judea unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house of David) ⁵ To be taxed with Mary that was given him to wife, which was with child.

Mark: 

Nothing

John: 

Nothing

Comments: First let us talk about Quirinius’ census. Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to be taxed because he belonged to King David’s lineage. King David reigned from 1010 – 970 BCE. If Joseph had to be counted in the town of King David, that means that everyone had to go back to their ancestral places at least a thousand years prior? How could anyone prove this to the authorities? How could anyone know? How come we don’t have massive lists of genealogies filling the historical archives to meet the requirement of Quirinius’ census. The logistics of this type of census would be beyond our present ability, let alone an illiterate society without printing press or computers. To put it in the present context it would require us to go back to our roots at 1000 AD. I am lucky to know that I have a great-grandfather who was Italian, whose name I do not know. One thousand years is just ridiculous.

Calling this a fabrication is being generous. It strikes this journeyman as a complex dance to get a Messiah from Nazareth to fit into a prophecy involving Bethlehem.

4. The Census of Caesar Augustus

Luke: 2:1 – 3: 

¹And it came in those days, that there came a decree from Augustus Caesar, that all the world should be taxed. ²(This first taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) ³Therefore went all to be taxed, every man to his own city.

Matthew:

No decree

Mark: 

No decree

John: 

No decree

History:

No worldwide decree documented

Comment: There is no historical evidence of a whole world…enrolled. The act of moving the population of the Roman Empire back to their home place would be a logistical nightmare that could not have been ignored. This movement of people would have been greater than many of the well-documented movements of barbarian tribes, and that this massive internal movement of people was not brought to the attention of a single individual chronicler or government institution, simply defies reason.

Jesus Christ is the most important man in history. Everything surrounding him should have been documented or alluded to with some amount of consistency. It is not. There is no evidence of a worldwide enrollment, there may have been a local one that it did not warrant Matthew, Mark, and John’s attentions.

And let us not forget, as discussed above, the issue of going back to where your ancestors lived 1,000 years prior.

5. The Three Magi’s Guiding Star

There are some problems of planetary physics that are usually overlooked.

Matthew: 2:1 

– 2: ¹When Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem. ²Saying,Where is the King of the Jews that is born? For we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him."

2:9:  

9So when they had heard the King, they departed; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over the place where the babe was.

Luke:  

No magi, no guiding star

Mark:  

No magi, no guiding star

John:  

No magi, no guiding star

History:

No notable celestial abnormality found in the historical record

Comment: The star has been a part of the nativity story and of western history. It has inspired theologians, writers, and even science fiction writers such as Arthur C. Clarke, involving a spacefaring priest and a past supernova. But there are a few problems and one of them is really important. The text states, Star at its rising, and we know that the stars rise in the east. We know the magi came from the east. This makes no sense, for if we follow the North Star we go north. The magi following the star rising in the east would be going east in the Gospel or deeper into the expanses of Asia.

Then one needs ask, as people turned to the stars much more than we do, a star that would putatively rise in the west would be such a huge event that somewhere someone would have mentioned this.

As the Romans and Egyptians used divination to predict the future, the study of entrails, stars, comets, planets, cosmic messages all were used to try to predict the future. This would mean that the star of Bethlehem would have been seen by someone and probably would have made it into the archives as numerous historical references allude to stars and their movements.

As the star of the magi was not mentioned, there are a number of possibilities. One is that it did not make it into the historical archives, but a star that for a relatively long period of time went against the movement of the sky would very likely have been noticed.

Then the star’s behavior, besides rising in the east, is rather unusual. It brings the magi close to Bethlehem and its guiding power stops, so the magi go to Herod. Then the star, after initiating the threat against all the first children, starts up again to bring the magi to Jesus. One could conjure up an overcast sky to explain the loss of the star. But at the same time, for an announcement of the coming of the Lord, the Supreme Being, the creator of black holes bigger than our planetary system, could have given better directions and do something about the weather.

The only thing that we can come up with at this time is that the odd behavior of the star, the wrong direction, the lack of documentation and the fact that three of the four Gospels don’t mention this even though it would be a confirmation of divinity that leads us to the conclusion that this was a story, and not a very good one, made up by the writers of Matthew’s Gospel—in other words, a myth.

The next answer could be that the star was so low that it was more of a light guiding the magi. This has some pretty bad implications for God. He guides the light to Herod. God knows Herod’s heart, and he then shuts the light out, forcing the magi to talk to Herod. At this time he has set the stage for the massacre of the innocents. After setting the stage he turns the light back on and guides the magi to the infant Jesus.

If Matthew’s story is right, the implication is that God is an accomplice in the murder of children, or infanticide. Herod may have been the bullet, but God pulled the trigger.

6. Birth of Jesus

Matthew:  

2:1: ¹When Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem.

Luke: 

2:7: ⁷She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger.

Mark: 

No birth narrative

John:  

No birth narrative

Comment: In Matthew we have an unremarkable birth; no inns, no manger. We do have the magi following a star while in Luke Christ is born in a manger and shepherds visit, but there are no magi; there is no star. The only thing we can know for sure is that Jesus Christ was born.

7. Herod’s Council and Micah’s Prophecy

After meeting the magi, Herod consults his followers and receives the following Old Testament prophecy.

Matthew 2:6:  

⁶And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah, art not the least among the Princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come the governor that shall feed my people Israel.

Mark: 

No event, no prophecy

Luke: 

No event, no prophecy

John: 

No event, no prophecy

Comments: The lack of witness or other historical information can only lead us to believe that this event was simply concocted. This is further buttressed by the prophetic statement itself. Using the NRSV Concordance we find this quote to be from Micah 5:2. If at first this seems a good prophecy that buttresses Matthew’s claims, it loses its impact if one reads Micah 5. Micah 5 prophesies that a man from Bethlehem will help the people out of the Assyrian exodus. The Assyrian invasion came some 700 years before Jesus Christ and is long passed by the time of Christ. And unless one is absolutely closed-minded, this cannot be interpreted any other way. The Assyrian connection to Jesus Christ in this prophecy is stretched as to be nonexistent so Micah, as one can see, is pretty irrelevant.

Micah 5:1 – 3 ¹Now you are walled around with a wall siege is laid against us, with a rod they strike the ruler of Israel upon the cheek. ²But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one which to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.³ Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel…⁶And they shall lay waste the land of Assyria…¹⁵have not heard.

There is no relevance to Jesus in Micah 5. No one reading Micah 5 would find a prophetic statement that would threaten a hold on Herod’s kingdom or provide any reason to go and perform infanticide on a grand scale.

Jesus will also be known as Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Bethlehem.

To review, there is no witness to the story. It is not carried by Mark, Luke, or John. Micah is about the Assyrian invasions, and finally Jesus is from Nazareth and not Bethlehem.

There is nothing here or any prophetic value to buttress the claim of Jesus’ divinity.

And as a postscript, the threat of the Lord never came to pass. The destruction of the Assyrian empire was not done under the direction of the Lord, but by a combination of tribes out of which emerged the Babylonian Empire.¹

8. The Return of the Star and the Story of the Magi

Matthew: 

2:9 – 12: ⁹So when they had heard the King, they departed, and lo, the star which they had seen in the East, went before them, till it came and stood over the place where the babe was. ¹⁰And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with an exceeding, great joy. ¹¹And went into the house, and found the baby with Mary, his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him, and opened their treasures, and presented unto him gifts, even gold, and frankincense and myrrh. ¹²And after they were warned of God in a dream, that they should not go again to Herod, they returned into their country another way.

Mark:  

Nothing

Luke:  

Nothing

John:  

Nothing

History:

No notable celestial abnormality found in the historical record at that time.

Comments: There are only three verses here and plenty to comment about. First and lo and behold, the star comes back and they continue their journey, and second at the end God comes in a dream to tell the magi to go back a different way. One is left to ponder: Why did God not start their journey with a dream and allow the magi to steer clear of Herod? If God comes in dreams and people obey, why not when the star shut off, God could not have given them directions? According to Matthew he can give good directions in dreams, while with celestial navigation he is not quite as good.

It cannot escape this writer again that if Matthew’s story has any truth to it, the implication is that God, by steering the magi to Herod and triggering this last’s paranoia, becomes an accomplice in the murder of children. God is omniscient, we know this, and in 2:13 he knows the future, and he knows the heart of Herod, he strokes this one’s fear. The logic that follows is that God is guilty of infanticide. One could say that Herod had a choice not to follow his more murderous nature. It also says that God had a choice as well not to trigger them.

Interestingly, God is willing to save the magi by telling them to skip Herod and go by an alternate route, but he is not willing to raise a finger for the children due to be massacred.

9. Flight to Egypt and Return from Egypt

According to Matthew, the holy family sets out for Egypt to await the neutralizing of Herod and then returns with a situation update. To make it sound more official, Matthew throws in a fulfilled prophecy.

Matthew: 2:13 – 14: 

¹³After their departure, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying:Arise, and take the babe and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be there till I bring thee word, for Herod will seek the babe to destroy him. ¹⁴So he arose and took the babe and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt,

2:19 – 23: 

"¹⁹And when Herod was dead, behold, and