Graham Phillips writes that Antipater, son of Herod, was the biological father of Jesus with his wife Miriamne (Greek for Mary). He backs his claim with a close reading of the Gospels. If that is so, it would require a radical reinterpretation of the Gospels. Is Christian orthodoxy ready to do so if the "proof" of Jesus' paternity turns out to be true?

One cannot but be amazed at the stupendous exploits of Graham Phillips. According to his books, he has located one of the tablets of the Ten Commandments (in England), the tomb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Grail, and other ancient objects. He has also revealed the true identities of William Shakespeare, Robin Hood, and King Arthur. He has solved other various mysteries, including the mysteries of the Ten Plagues in Egypt. Now, he has revealed the true identity of Jesus. And they say that Bible-believing Christians are gullible. To claim such a string of discoveries takes an amazing amount of chutzpah.

As to his proof that Christ is a son of Herod, we are stunned in wonderment. He rests on the claims of scripture that Jesus Christ is the King of the Jews. Pilate's hesitation and his sending him to Herod along with Herod the Great's determination to kill the baby Jesus is supposed to be solid proof of this relationship (after what you call "a close reading of the Gospels").

But the Herodian family was not even of Jewish stock. They were Edomites, the ancient enemies of the Jews. And, though they were nominally Jewish in practice, they would be the last people to be accepted as proper kings by the Jews. They certainly were not of the line of David. Herod the Great was called the "king of Judaea" (Luke 1:5There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
See All...), but he was not the king of the Jews.

This "close reading of the Gospels" also rejects the absolutely clear statements and descriptions of the birth and paternity of Jesus. That is, while making gargantuan leaps in logic to prove the ridiculous, Phillips totally ignores the exact statements of Matthew 1:16-25 [16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. [17] So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. [21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, [23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: [25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
See All... and Luke 1:30-35 [30] And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. [31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: [33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] Then 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 Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
See All.... I accept the right of you or Phillips to reject the miracle of the virgin birth. However, to claim scriptural authority for doing so destroys all concepts of basic reason. I accept a miracle as true that is clearly taught in the scriptures. Phillips is making up a miracle of his own based on castle-in-the-air assumptions while ignoring the Bible's direct statements.