Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§11.1 Beginning from the Baptism of John
2.5-6)? 31 It is presumably significant that nothing more is made of Bethlehem
outside the birth narratives. Elsewhere it is simply assumed that Jesus is 'from
Nazareth', 32 that he is 'the Nazarene'. 33 The account of Jesus' visit to Nazareth
presupposes that Nazareth and Galilee were his native place (patris) (Mark 6.1,
4; pars.). John indeed raises the double issue — 'Can anything good come from
Nazareth?' (John 1.46; 7.52), and, according to Scripture, the Messiah 'comes
from Bethlehem' (7.42) — without anywhere refuting the first or affirming that
Jesus did in fact fulfil the prophecy (7.41). At the same time, there is never a hint
that Jesus' descent from David was in question; it is simply taken for granted in
what appear to be early creedal-type formulations. 34 So, once again, it is the core
claim (Jesus as son of David) which seems least vulnerable to historical scepticism
and of which the Bethlehem tradition may be an elaboration. 35
What about the virgin birth, or more accurately, virginal conception? Were
it the case that Mary remained a virgin and made this known, one might have expected
Isa. 7.14 LXX to come into play earlier or elsewhere in the NT tradition
as 'proof. What we do have are two or three tantalising allusions or possible allusions
to some popular knowledge or a rumour regarding an irregularity in Jesus'
birth. (1) One comes in the account of Jesus' rejection in Nazareth. On hearing
Jesus' teaching, the synagogue assembly asks:
Matt. 13.55
Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not his
mother called Mary and his brothers James,
Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Mark 6.3
Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses,
Judas and Simon?
31. The differences between Matthew's rendering of Micah 5.2 and the MT and LXX
texts are of no consequence here.
32. Matt. 21.11; Mark 1.9; John 1.45, 46; Acts 10.38.
33. Mark 1.24; 10.47; 14.67; 16.6; Luke 24.19; John 18.5, 7; 19.19; Acts 2.22; 3.6; 4.10;
6.14; 22.8; 24.5; 26.9. See also above, chapter 9 n. 272.
34. Rom. 1.3; 2 Tim. 2.8; Ignatius, Eph. 18.2; 20.2; Smyrn. 1.1; also Rev. 5.5. See also
0. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (London; SCM, 1959) 128-30; 'the
Davidic descent of Jesus cannot be disputed' (Hahn, Hoheitstitel 250 [Titles 245]).
35. See further Brown, Birth 505-12, who concludes that the evidence that Jesus was really
a Davidide outweighs doubts to the contrary, but who also notes that 'there would be no irreparable
theological damage to Christianity if Jesus were proved to have been of non-Davidic
descent' (511). Similarly Meier, Marginal Jew 1.216-19, 237-42. An ossuary inscription from
first century BCE indicates that the bones therein belonged to 'those who are from the house of
David' (details in D. Flusser, 'Jesus, His Ancestry and the Commandment of Love', in
Charlesworth, ed., Jesus' Jewishness 153-76 [here 158-59, illustration 150]). This confirms that
lineal descent from David could and was being claimed at the time of Jesus. See further below
§§15.2-4.
345