# Is Matthew's Infancy Narrative Historical? **T**HE historical trustworthiness of the Christian Gospels is an important issue for the Church. Vatican II restated (1965) the Church\'s enduring conviction: the NT Gospels faithfully transmit the historical truth about Jesus, his teaching, and his mighty works (*Dei Verbum,* 19). Nevertheless, scholars sometimes question whether the Gospel writers intended to record history at all. Some claim that Matthew\'s Infancy Narrative (chaps. 1 ---2) is a prime example of this. Matthew, it is said, did not recount the events of Jesus\' birth in the strict sense ---he instead composed a *midrash* on the OT. The word *midrash* is a Hebrew noun meaning \"interpretation\" or \"commentary\". The term has various meanings today. Sometimes it denotes ancient Jewish writings ---common after A.D. 200 ---that use OT stories to teach religious truths. It can also describe the methods of OT interpretation found in these writings. Most notably, *midrash* is notorious for retelling biblical stories and embellishing them with fictional details. One *midrash* on the birth of Moses imaginatively expands the story found in Ex 2, describing how Moses\' father had a dream predicting his birth, an Egyptian scribe informed Pharaoh of his birth, and the scribe himself later sought to kill the young Moses. These details add color to Moses\' earliest years, but no such detail is found in the Bible. Matthew 1-2 is thought to fit in a similar category of pious reflection; the evangelist is thus charged with fabricating events related to OT passages but having no real basis in history. A response to this claim may be outlined in several points. 1\. Matthew 1 ---2 is stylistically different from *midrash.* Unlike *midrash,* the evangelist\'s story of Jesus is not founded on an OT text. Whereas *midrash* seeks to mine deeper meanings of the OT, Matthew does not seek to interpret the OT for its own sake. More to the point, Matthew is not retelling OT episodes but is telling an entirely new story! It is a story with new characters and events; it is a story that could stand on its own apart from his OT citations. Matthew employs the OT to illuminate the significance of Jesus\' birth, not to determine in advance its plot and outcome. 2\. Matthew sees Jesus as the fulfillment of OT promises. He draws from Scripture to support Jesus\' qualifications as Israel\'s Messiah by linking important episodes (virginal conception, flight to Egypt, massacre of the Innocents, etc.) with ancient oracles. Unless these *events* are anchored in history in the first place, it seems unlikely that Matthew would fabricate stories *as if* Jesus fulfilled the OT. Scripture was never really fulfilled if the events Matthew narrates never happened. In this case, Matthew\'s exegesis of the OT would amount to little more than an exercise in self-delusion. Besides, were it Matthew\'s tendency to invent stories out of OT texts, it is likely his narrative would have turned out differently. For example, Ps 72:10 and Is 60:3-6 clearly stand behind Matthew\'s story of the wise men in Mt 2. Were Matthew writing *midrash,* these OT verses would probably exert greater control in shaping his story: Jesus would then receive only \"two gifts\" (gold and frankincense) instead of three, and \"kings\", instead of Persian astrologers, would pay him homage. 3\. Matthew does not regard the OT as a simple, pre-written script of Jesus\' life. With the exception of Mic 5:2 (Mt 2:6), Matthew\'s OT citations appear to be unlikely candidates for messianic prophesies, were he not peering at deeper mysteries within their literal meaning. For example, Is 7:14 (Mt 1:23) was first spoken about the birth of king Hezekiah; Hosea 11:1 (Mt 2:15) was originally looking backward to Israel\'s Exodus from Egypt; Jer 31:15 (Mt 2:18) describes the tragedy of the Jewish Exile in 586 B.C.; and Matthew\'s reference to the \"Nazarene\" (Mt 2:23) is difficult even to locate. Thus Matthew is not assembling the most obvious OT prophesies about the Messiah and neatly attaching them to Jesus. His use of the OT is legitimate and spiritual but not artificial. That Matthew gathers obscure texts to interpret Jesus\' infancy suggests that history is controlling his story, not the OT. 4\. Matthew 1 ---2 coheres well with our knowledge of history from extrabiblical sources. First, the Holy Family\'s flight to Egypt (Mt 2:13) squares with known historical circumstances: Egypt at this time was the home of large Jewish colonies (e.g., Alexandria, Elephantine). Second, the role of the wise men in Mt 2 corresponds with our knowledge of Persian sages from the ancient East. Their interests in astrology naturally link them with stellar phenomena (i.e., the star of Bethlehem). Third, the moral character of Herod the Great known from other sources is consistent with his actions in Mt 2. Having murdered many suspected adversaries ---and even family members ---it is reasonable to think Herod would execute young Bethlehemites (Mt 2:16) as a preemptive strike against future threats to his crown. 5\. Of some relevance: the Pontifical Biblical Commission addressed the issue of historicity in Matthew\'s Infancy Narrative at the turn of the twentieth century. This commission was instituted by Pope Leo XIII (1902) to examine select biblical questions related to the Catholic faith. Though not infallible declarations of faith, the early decisions and decrees of this commission may be taken as authoritative guidance. After careful study of this issue, weighing both ancient and modern interpretive traditions, the commission concluded on June 19, 1911, that contemporary challenges to the historical authenticity of Mt 1 ---2 are devoid of solid foundation. In summary, Matthew\'s Infancy Narrative is both theological and historical. Matthew cites the OT as *confirmation* of his story, not as its *foundation.* He intends readers to view Jesus\' early life as real events with real characters. For Matthew, Jesus himself holds the key to the OT, and his coming marks a new era in salvation history that gathers up all of God\'s promises and brings them to fulfillment. The historical reliability of Mt 1 ---2, then, is consistent with Catholic tradition and the sound principles of biblical and historical study. « Back to Matthew 1:1. --- > Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, *The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament*, Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010).