The Birth of Jesus
Truth or Myth?
The following blog is taken from a lecture/discussion given at Park Road Baptist Church on Wednesday night, December 1, 2010. I have attempted to fill in the “gaps” from the discussion, but only a little. The main thrust of the discussion will be clear, but if you have further questions, please post them as comments on the blog.
Note: The discussion that follows concerns the birth of Jesus as we know of it by the stories of his birth. When discussing the “truth” or “myth” of that birth, I am not talking about the biological, physical birth. I believe Jesus was in fact a real man who was literally born, like every other human is born. (There are some who believe the entire story of Jesus is a fabricated legend.) So when discussing his “birth,” I am really referring to the “story of his birth.”
***
National news media recently reported on a controversy that is brewing in New York City between the American Atheist Association and the local Catholic League. The Atheists Association paid for a billboard ad, visible when coming through the Lincoln Tunnel that says:
“You know it’s a MYTH
This season. Celebrate REASON.”
Not to be outdone, the Catholics chose a billboard on the opposite side of the road and countered:
“You know it’s REAL
Celebrate Jesus.”
I was disappointed in the coverage of this controversy in that the Christian voice, implicitly representative of all Christians, simply stood on tradition and a basic “the Bible says” position – which only proves the point the Atheists were trying to make, namely, they speak from reason, all Christians speak from un-reasoned emotion, or superstition, or sentimentalism.
Several Wednesdays ago, in studying the Marcus Borg book, “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time,” I quoted Borg who stated that virtually all mainline Christian scholars now agree that Jesus was probably born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. (We were looking at his chapter on how to read the Hebrew Prophets; he was referring to some of the “predictions” of the birth of Jesus when he made this comment.) Paired with the NYC controversy, it seemed to me an apropos question: Is the birth of Jesus “truth” or “myth.”
In asking the question, we considered three of the four gospel texts, regarding Jesus’ birth.
***
Mark’s Birth Narrative
Mark 1.1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the son of God. As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of once crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” John the baptizer appeared… In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan…
Mark’s gospel contains no birth narrative, so no mention of either Bethlehem or Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus. What does this mean? If Mark’s gospel is the oldest gospel (as a majority of scholars argue), it means at the very least that for this writer, and for his audience, there was no need of a birth narrative. (See my sermon from November 29, 2009 for more on this:
“Lost in the Cantatas.” www.parkroadbaptist.org: Worship tab. “Park Road Pulpit” link.) Mark assumes Nazareth as Jesus’ hometown, because Jesus comes from Nazareth to be baptized of John. There are other references to Nazareth as his hometown, but there is no interest one way or another in the birthplace of Jesus.
***
Matthew’s Birth Narrative
Matthew 1.1 An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac… Jacob… King David… and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon… and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
So all the generation from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to Babylon, fourteen generation; from Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.
From a careful study of scripture it is clear that Matthew has his facts wrong. There are not 14 generations, evenly divided, in three segments. Chronicles records three kings which Matthew omits. In that day, however, numerology was very important, and often used to make theological emphases. (Every Hebrew letter was assigned a numerical value. Some rabbis were gifted at finding meaning, supposedly hidden in the numbers (like a great Dan Brown novel!). Apparently the numerical sum of the letters of the name David (DWD), the greatest king of Israel, who’s throne the coming Messiah would reestablish is… fourteen!
Clearly Matthew’s purpose here is not “just the facts, Ma’am.” Even according to scripture he got the facts wrong. Something more important than facts is at work in his gospel!
We could elaborate on the genealogy more, showing that a virgin birth (which Matthew does not attest) would destroy the lineage through Joseph to David – thus eliminating Jesus’ Jewish qualifications to be Messiah (he would be a “Son of David.”) So, either Jesus was a “Son of David” (Matthew) or a Son of God (Luke) – but, literally, according to the “facts,” he cannot be both. Clearly the gospel writers are working on something more important to them than the facts.
What is important to Matthew? (consider the reference to Abraham… David… Babylon… Messiah…) The Jewishness of Jesus is important. Connecting Jesus’ Jewish lineage, and showing Jesus’ fulfillment of Jewish law and Jewish hopes is important to Matthew, whose audience was primarily Jewish.
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way… 2.1 In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came… “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews?”… and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea…”(Micah 5.2)
13. Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt… This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son…” (Hosea 11.1)
19. When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up… and go to the land of Israel… But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea (Bethlehem) in the place of (Archelaus’) father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.”(Isaiah 11.1 A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch (Hebrew: NZR) shall grow out of his roots…)
“For the sake of the pattern the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (1 Chronicles 3.11-12) have been omitted… The device of making three groups of names is an aid to memory. Fourteen is the sum of the numerical value of the three letters in the name of David in Hebrew (DWD).” (Oxford Annotated Bible)
Where is Jesus born? Why?
Matthew’s narrative assumes that Bethlehem is the home of Mary and Joseph. There is no travel narrative, no census, no mention of Nazareth as the hometown, in Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is born in Bethlehem – because that’s where his parents lived!
As Matthew often does, he connects Jesus’ story to the Jewish story. Why travel to Egypt? So the prophecy of Isaiah can be fulfilled (out of Egypt I have called my son). Though it should be important to note that this is not at all what the Isaiah passage originally meant. While Christians have defended the text as referring to the literal return of the Holy Family from Egypt, we need to acknowledge that there is a clear, unmistakable reference in the passage – and it is not a future prophecy. The clear message of Isaiah is a “prophecy” referring to an event of the past: God’s presence with the children of Israel in release from the bondage of the Pharaoh.
Next we need to ask why Matthew has the Holy Family settling in Nazareth. It is easy for modern Christians to read scripture with our neatly packaged stories in mind. In this case I am referring to the Christmas story as we have received it: the manger scene with the magi and the shepherds and the stable. (I often humorously add the little drummer boy and Santa, right there by the manger!) But for Matthew’s congregation, there was no picture such as this. Nor for Mark’s. Nor for Luke’s. Each has his own story – and it is certainly reasonable to ask why none of the writers has the same story, the same characters, the same setting… What does this mean? On face value, then, Matthew’s gospel has the Holy Family settle in Nazareth as a new home town – after fleeing their original hometown for fear of their life. Matthew’s gospel is filled with Hebrew texts that are “fulfilled” in Jesus (remember the note of the Jewishness of his audience.) Yet the “fulfilled prophecy” here is very interesting. There is no Hebrew text that says the Messiah will live in Nazareth. The Isaiah text to which Matthew is apparently referring uses the Hebrew word for branch (which, in very simplified terms, is spelled: NZR). This Hebrew word, while clearly NOT “Nazareth” or “Nazarene” is apparently close enough for Matthew to claim this as a prophecy fulfilled. It is interesting logic, to say the least!
***
Luke’s Birth Narrative
Luke 1.46 And Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; 49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. 52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. 54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, 55 according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants for ever.’ 56 And Mary remained with her for about three months and then returned to her home.
What is Luke’s emphasis?
Luke’s gospel emphasizes the poor, the outcast, the oppressed. Women are favored characters for Luke. So Luke’s gospel, alone (and not surprisingly), has shepherds attending the birth – not Kings! Where are the magi in Luke’s narrative? Even if Luke were making a different theological emphasis, does it make sense that he would simply leave out these major players in the birth narrative? And this is even more striking since many commentators have noted Luke’s attention to detail – more than any other gospel, Luke is concerned with the particulars in his stories. Something else is going on here… even for Luke. It’s not “the facts” that are important.
Luke 2 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3All went to their own towns to be registered. 4Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. 5He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
Only in Luke, is Nazareth the original hometown of Joseph and Mary. Only in Luke is he born in Bethlehem – because of a Census. But there are no non-canonical (non biblical) records of any such census or taxing at this time. There was an enrollment required by Quirinius in 6 CE. I don’t have all the detail here, but scholars have noted that due to a miscalculation of dates, at the time the Gregorian calendar was established, in the Middle ages, “BC” and “AD” are actually out of line by 4 years. In other words, Jesus was really born in 4 BC! This would put Quirinius’ census a full decade after Jesus’ birth (see below).
***
Birth of Jesus According to the Commentaries
I wanted to point out Marcus Borg’s point – that mainline scholars do not simply affirm the birth of Jesus as we have received it in our manger scenes, so I turned to two commentaries which are in my library. The commentaries I quoted are hardly new, liberal, leftist, “Jesus Seminar” commentaries. The New Interpreter’s Bible, I noted humorously, came from my father’s library – and my father is no liberal!
***
Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, “Jesus,” pp.445-446
“Despite the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, Jesus in his own time was known to his contemporaries not as a native of Bethlehem and a messianic claimant from the line of King David, but as a humble Nazarene. Whatever their merit as history, the birth stories were not public knowledge during Jesus’ lifetime…
Even in the gospel of John (latest: written ~100CE), Jesus’ first disciples introduced him as ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’…”
In Nazareth itself, the people among whom he had grown up said… ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?…
The marvelous accounts of Jesus’ birth, whatever their value as genuine history, cannot be presupposed in attempting to make sense of the Gospel records of his life and teaching.”
***
Interpreter’s Bible, Luke, p.50
“Luke’s beautiful pastoral narrative is folk poetry – saga that love and reverence wove about God’s good, glad gift of Christ to humanity. Attempts to find pagan antecedents to it in the Roman tale of Romulus and Remus and the shepherds who nurtured them, in the Iranian account of the shepherds who watched over the birth of Mithra, or in some hypothetical messianic legend borrowed by Hellenistic Judaism from Egyptian Osiris mythology, have not led to any conclusive results…
Luke seeks to set his story against the background of secular history… No other source makes any mention of a census of “all the world” (a hyperbole for the Roman Empire during Caesar’s reign). An enrollment in the province of Syria for purposes of taxation was undertaken in AD 6 (or 7) when Quirinius was governor. The references to it by Josephus… imply that this census was the “first enrollment”… Since Quirinius was never Roman legate in Syria during the lifetime of Herod the Great, and Luke’s earlier narratives assume that John the Baptist – and therefore Jesus also – was born while Herod was still king of Judea, it would appear that the evangelist has been guilty of an anachronism. Many ingenious attempts have been made to escape this conclusion, but all fall short of demonstration. Furthermore it is improbably that any Roman census would have required a man to report to the home of his ancestors. Such a procedure would have been almost as impracticable in Roman times as it would be in our own, and the Roman state was interested in a man’s property, not in his pedigree.”
***
Summary
I have no interest in destroying people’s faith. Taking away their Christmas. I am determined, however, to listen to the scholars, whom I believe are only interested in taking the Bible seriously (which may necessarily mean, not literally!). They believe, as do I, that the Bible can and should stand the same scrutiny, the same critical tests, the same evaluative criteria as any other work. According to these standards, for most mainline scholars, the story of the birth of Jesus (a la manger scene fame) does not appear a story cast in fact. But so much more.
Can we live with a narrative that is more theological than factual? (I suppose it depends on what is important to you…) I can live with this. I affirm what has been called the scripture’s emphasis on “salvation history,” which is the story of God’s work with the people of the biblical narratives. But “salvation history” falls short of “factual history.” We know now that there are “facts” in the Bible that are just wrong. Matthew’s genealogy makes this explicit – but it makes his genealogy no less important, just less about “history” than “salvation history.”
So… is the birth of Jesus “myth” or “truth”? If by truth you mean literally, chronologically, historically, factually true… then I would have to stand with the Atheists in NYC – but “Myth,” understood properly, does not mean what they suggest (a hollow, meaningless tale). “Myth” is the greatest expression of deep, meaningful, spiritual truth. Why did Jesus tell parables instead of recount factual stories? Why do Aesop’s Fables stand, still today as one of our literally treasures? How is truth ALWAYS told?
In stories…
So, Jesus’ birth, is a story that is both less than fact (it cannot be “proven” in ways that measure up by modern standards of truthfulness/factuality) – but it is also so much more than fact. The birth of Jesus is not about a biological happening at a chronological moment in geographical space and historical time – it’s about God’s coming to us. Yes… it’s a myth. Which is why I know it is true!
*** The final belief is to believe in a fiction, which you know to be a fiction, there being nothing else. The exquisite truth is to know that it is a fiction and that you believe in it willingly. — Wallace Stevens
10 Comments
Russ,
On cold winter nights, when darkness arrives around 5:30, and the wind whips my coat around, when I know many are cold, hungry, lonely, sick, homeless, and I know others are in the horrible place where they are surrounded by people yet more alone than if in a wilderness; on those nights, it is EASY to listen for angels singing; easy to think of a baby born somewhere in a cold night, who invites us to hope, and prods us to give, and care, and believe in our dark sooty selves again.
Merry Christmas.
Ron,
I prefer to put my hope in people who give and care for others, only because they feel it is right, and not because some make-believe supernatural father tells us we will go to some horrible afterlife if we don’t (actually, according to the Protestants, we are ‘saved by faith alone’. I guess those Christians don’t have to actually do any good works to go to heaven.)
I’ll take reality any day over myth and superstition!
Scott – where did you hear anyone in this blog affirm a belief in such a “supernatural father”? An atheistic student was once asked by a professor to “tell me about this God in whom you do not believe.” The student described a God that sounded similar to the “supernatural father” you also reject — to which the professor replied, “That’s interesting. I don’t believe in that God either.”
The god you reject is, in my view not God at all. And I’ll take reality any day, too, over superstition — it’s just that I believe our reality is best, most fully described, by using the category of “myth” to convey the depth of our experience.
Thanks for the dialogue.
r
:::We know now that there are “facts” in the Bible that are just wrong.::::
If one approaches the Bible as “Myth” stories giving expressions of deep, meaningful, spiritual truth, then how can the “facts” in the Bible be wrong if there are no facts?
Since the given stories are pointing to spiritual truth then we might suppose that the writers were not intentionally trying to be deceitful. They would have chosen words that would put forth the truth, the spiritual truth that they were trying to convey. Matthew and John refer to Bethlehem in reference to that which was written by the prophet.
Matthew: Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea…………., for so it is written by the prophet:
John Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”
So when Luke also mentions Bethlehem are we to think he was ignorant of the scriptures?
Luke: Joseph went from the town of Nazareth ……..to the city of….. Bethlehem, ……. with Mary,…. who was expecting a child. While they were there, ……. she gave birth to her firstborn son.
Mark starts his story with Jesus at around 30 years old. That does seems a little late for a birth story.
The great thing about this “Myth” story is that it is consistent. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Correct, Sherman. In my view, the Bible is not interested in “facts,” as we understand them, i.e. as empirically verifyable, literal, or historical happenings. The Bible is interested in spiritual truths, i.e., “myths,” truths that are (both) less than “fact” (since they cannot be “proven”) and more than “fact” — since they are more important than any “literal” truth they might contain on the surface.
The “facts” are contradictory or “wrong” only if you see them as “facts” to begin with. But since many/most folks have been taught to read the Bible in a pretty literalistic fashion, I stand by my statement.
For a Middle Eastern view of the Christmas Story, see:
http://www.sviewp.com/
or
http://chriswkite.blogspot.com/2010/12/birth-of-jesus-as-seen-through-middle.html
It says “no room at the inn” is better viewed as “the guest room was occupied” and the manger was likely an area in the house where the animals were normally kept at night for warmth and security. This view shows as more hospitable view of the story.
In a similar way, we should be open to different cultural facts that may seem like myths. Jesus can be the Son of David and the Son of God where “Son” has both physical and spiritual meanings. Jesus came from the bloodline of David through Mary. My understanding is that her genealogy is shown in Luke with Joseph shown as the son of Heli (in italics) through his marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Jesus is also a Son of David through Joseph as he is adopted into the regal, but cursed lineage.
Quantum:
Unfortunately I can’t see my previous post, so I’m not sure exactly what I said. Did it get deleted?
And yes perhaps your exact view of God is different than the generic version I mentioned. I only mentioned that because it’s the common view of God I hear from most Christians.
If I had to be more specific to your version (not knowing exactly what version of God you believe in) I would say that any ‘god’ that is consistent with reality is either completely impotent (unable to affect the physical world) or is indistinguishable from human wishful thinking (a god figure just made up by people to explain the unknown or to explain ‘spiritual’ feelings).
Scott –
Here is your original comment, a response to Ron:
“Ron,
I prefer to put my hope in people who give and care for others, only because they feel it is right, and not because some make-believe supernatural father tells us we will go to some horrible afterlife if we don’t (actually, according to the Protestants, we are ‘saved by faith alone’. I guess those Christians don’t have to actually do any good works to go to heaven.)
I’ll take reality any day over myth and superstition!”
I was responding to this in my reply. Now let me address your second response. (I hope this is all clear — I don’t know why your initial response did not originally show up on the blog).
My second response is that it is specifically to your questions/cynicisms that this blog is addressed. I do believe God is consistent with a view of reality — even scientific (quantum) reality. Now, let me say that I agree that many believers (Christian and others) have a view of God that is based in what you call superstition. I believe the Church must address this superstition with a theology that is more consistent with a modern/scientific/quantum world view. Further, I would not diagree with your assessment that for many, God is that kind of “supernatural father” that you criticize. I do not believe, however, that such a theology is consistent even with the best of orthodox scholarship. (I believe orthodox theologians would take issue with your characterization of the ethical action of such Christians, with an appropriate justification for their actions, and with the nature and action of God. In other words, though many Christians may actually believe according to your critique, I think these beliefs are inconsistent with what the best of critical orthodox scholarship would suggest.)
Having said that… it is not my purpose to defend orthodox theology (with which I have a number of concerns, myself).
To your specific concerns:
I do not believe God is inconsistent with a scientific world — nor do I believe any “consistent” God would be impotent. This is the very point of the first entries of this blog. No… God cannot do “anything” God “chooses” to do (I reject the “omnipotent God” of orthodox theology). But if you will follow this blog you will see how I defend the power of a non-omnipotent God. And God is, in my view, not just “wishful thinking” or some “projection” (a la Feuerbach)… I simply do not believe a purely naturalistic explanation of the universe is a complete explanation. I believe there is human experience that cannot be fully defined or explained by purely reductionistic means. I believe there is “more.” And this “more” of human experience will always require the language of myth to describe.
I do not believe God is beyond the natural world (a “supernatural father”who reaches down when he chooses to do what he pleases). I believe God is, “the heart of all reality,” so, the most natural thing there is. I believe God is not to be defined in terms of power, but, as Jesus said, as “Spirit and truth” (John 4). God is love (1 John 4). I do not believe God stands outside our “natural” experience rewarding or punishing with “supernatural” destinies.
In a “Time” magazine interview several years ago the noted biologist and evangelical atheist, Richard Dawkins, argued against the acclaimed geneticist and evangelical Christian, Francis Collins. In their closing comments, ironically, I found myself siding with the view of Dawkins over that of Collins. Dawkins’ final remark was: “If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
Dawkins is right about God — but he is wrong about religion and theologians. The best theologians, in a variety of religions, have ALWAYS believed in this kind of “incomprehensible” God. Such a God who is consistent with a quantum world. Such a God who is much beyond the “supernatural father” you deride. Such a God who is neither impotent nor a projection of my best hopes and wishes. Such a God who is, simply put, God. (That’s what the word should mean.)
I appreciate your comments, and will enjoy continuing our dialogue.
Grace and Peace,
r
Russ, the authorities recognize Luke’s account of Christ’s life as lacking all the common hallmarks of mythology. Every bit of Luke’s account that can be corroborated by either direct observation or by secular authorities has been corroborated. It is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy for you to claim that his account is a myth in any respect. You have clearly not done your homework on this, and I shudder to think what open pulpit Sundays are like at your church.
Thanks for your comments, Ben. I’d love to know who you are and how you found my blog and why you felt the need to respond. (I’m very glad to have your response, just curious about it.) The word “myth” throws a lot of folks. I suppose my church has grown accustomed to my use of the term, which you say I have used incorrectly. But I’ll stand by my understanding, which corresponds to Miriam-Webster: “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the word view of a people, or explain a practice, believe, or natural phenomenon.” The point that I have tried to make with my congregation is that the Bible is not a “history book.” Its concern is with “salvation history.” The New Testament is not a log of eye-witness reports about Jesus (like reading newspaper reports about his itinerary), it is the early, developing Church’s understanding of Jesus — which is more theological than chronological or historical. The church’s understanding is based on his actual historical presence — but it is much more than that. Scholars across the theological spectrum have agreed (ok, not fundamentalists who insist on a woodenly literal reading) that disentagling the “historical Jesus” from the “Christ of faith” is no easy task — hence the 200 years of interest in the “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” I’m simply trying to suggest that our people learn to read the Bible without getting tangled up in the arguments over what did and didn’t “really happen.” The Wednesday night discussion on this topic came after a report from the NY controversy between Catholics and Atheists, and I was disappointed in the Catholic take on that issue. There is more truth in our Bible than “just the facts, ma’am.” Obviously many people disagree with this. Without a “factual” Bible, faith falls apart for them — as it has for far too many. My conviction is that the Church must give people a Bible and a faith that is bigger than that. “Myth” may be the wrong word for you, but I stand by it, by definition, and in the context of our conversation. (Actually, the word “Gospel” is probably right in its proper sense, but since so many people simply view the Gospels as standard news-reporting on the life of Jesus, I’m looking for other ways to help people hear and understand.) Finally, without knowing me at all, I’m sorry you feel the need to “shudder” in judgment. Every Sunday is an “open pulpit Sunday” at Park Road Baptist Church, and many in this community of faith are here precisely because they have been unable to find a church where either the pulpit or pew is allowed such grace. It is an environment of trust and respect and dialogue, not one of hurling of insults. You would be welcome here any Sunday. — Russ