"and all Jerusalem with him"

Nativity Narrative Revisited · "and all Jerusalem with him"

Matthew 2: [1-3] When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to adore him. And king Herod hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

In a book* from 2012, a man known then to such Catholics as I would consider "displaced souls" as "Pope Benedict XVI" seems to have hinted against the historicity of Matthew 2:3.

I say "seems to" - namely if there is nothing upcoming on the video by Bro. Peter Dimond after 11:54 and also nothing beyond this paragraph on p. 102 by his book.

Now, there are three levels of problems which a non-believer could try to find with this verse, and I propose to deal with them to show that they do not invalidate the historicity of the Gospel.

First, the one hinted at on that paragraph from p. 102, and shown at this time signature of the video**

The first "difficulty" evoked by Ratzinger was about why the Magi spoke of "king of the Jews" when Jews would have spoken of "king of Israel" - the solution is common with the Titulus on the Cross, the Magi, like Pilate, were Gentiles and they were speaking empirically about the de facto stretch of the realm. Or, they were speaking of "king of Judah" and underlining the Davidic nature of Christ's Kingship, lacking to Herod. Anyway, the phrase "king of the Jews" clearly made sense on both occasions involving a Gentile or more, so poses no problem for historicity of either passage.

But the idea of a parallel between the passages is pushed to a dangerous point where the mention of "all Jerusalem" being unquiet was given as having no sense if this was real history, so, my first task is to establish it has, from the Bible comment by Haydock and the commenter A.

Ver. 3. Through fear of losing his kingdom, he being a foreigner, and had obtained the sovereignty by violence. But why was all Jerusalem to be alarmed at the news of a king so long and so ardently expected? 1. Because the people, well acquainted with the cruelty of Herod, feared a more galling slavery. 2. Through apprehension of riots, and of a revolution, which could not be effected without bloodshed, as the Romans had such strong hold. They had also been so worn down with perpetual wars, that the most miserable servitude, with peace, was to the Jews an object rather of envy than deprecation. A.

The next questions are, what does "all Jerusalem" mean, how did "all Jerusalem" know, and why do the Jews not report this in their histories? Because here, Haydock and commenter A. are silent.

St. Matthew was a Levite, was therefore educated as a scribe, and to him, if all religious and political notables of Jerusalem were troubled, that could be resumed as "all Jerusalem" being so. It's like speaking of "all New York" if you mean all of the posh areas, and leave out individual exceptions, but also Bronx.

Anna and Symeon, these Old Testament Saints, were obviously not troubled. But they were not very typical of Jerusalem.

Luke 2: [25] And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him. ... [36-37] And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity. And she was a widow until fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day.

In other words, for the reasons stated in the Haydock comment to Matthew 2:3, most people were unlike these two, most people were more apprehensive than hopeful about the eventuality of the promised Messiah arriving. And these most people of Jerusalem are what St. Matthew summarily calls "all Jerusalem" - a very often used turn of phrase and so far not yet out of fashion.

How did "all Jerusalem" know? Given we deal with important people, the obvious answer is networking. It was not immediately when Herod started to worry that all worried with him, but with the delay it took them to hear the news and sympathise with the "legitimate concerns" of their leader. It is very probable that this atmosphere was what made the childkilling in Bethlehem possible.

Political experts are saying that such and such a religious fanaticism is a legitimate hasard for the peace or wellbeing of the world - well, most people will agree with them, I'd say from my experience as such a "religious fanatic" as they would no doubt stamp me if I were better known and if they realised it is no good to try to change my mind, I'm not planning to bond with father figures offered me, and review positions of mine along with such "wiser men" than myself ...

This hysteria made the child killing politically, as one would say earlier on "morally" possible. Not that it was a moral, that is a morally good act, but that the act resonated with a hysteric morality that had been shaped by Herod's worries.

And final question - why do the Jews not speak of this in their stories?

Well, they have blotted out most of the memory of Our Lord Jesus the Christ from their collective memory, and attached remainders to the memory of another man, Yeshu, disciple of Joshua ben Pekhariah, and this composite memory is of course a blasphemy against Our Lord, but the details concerning only that disciple need not be, if such another man existed. I think he did and that his historically best known identity would be Odin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady of Mercy
24.IX.2022

* Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives Relié – 21 novembre 2012
Édition en Anglais | de Pope Benedict XVI (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385346409

** The Secret Intentions of Benedict XVI's new book: "The Infancy Narratives"
5th Dec. 2012 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCHEL6CSCc