NOTE: If you only have a few minutes spare, skip my ramblings and go straight for the Tom Wright clip near the end....
I was a cow in my first nativity play. In fact, I was such a spectacular cow (as any who know me might readily imagine) that the next year I was promoted to Mary. [Fast-tracked to my "level of incompetence" or what? Or rather, way beyond my level, skipping several interim incompetencies along the way...my hospitality skills are somewhat lacking, I'm useless with animals, I'm neither wise nor a man...].
Here is another nativity play; the clip featured at the big, shiny, (fire-hazard-y), carol service I went to at our big friendly local Anglican (in true, hip-and-with-it, "it's multimedia all the way now, kids" style).
I laughed a lot -- not least because it called to mind my fabulous dear sister, who (as a child), looked a lot like the protagonist of the piece, and was prone to display similar character, guts, and volume, with similar charming determination.
However -- and I rightly dread what this will do for my growing reputation as someone who obdurately disdains the things in which the rest of the world delights -- I confess that nowadays I have reservations about nativity plays. Don't get me wrong: kids are precious, and cute; sticking them on stage can do wonders for their self-confidence; teaching them about Jesus I am most certainly all for (let's leave discussions about 'brainwashing' concerns for another time)... But the Incarnation, if true, is an event of surpassing import and mystery. It is also an event in history -- that is, it intersects with (and impacts on) real human lives and experiences. Personally, I find it hard to hold on to the reality and depth of the fact that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) when presented with a fictionalised, idealised narrative played out by a bunch of adorable, rowdy mites with tea-towels on their heads and pillows up their jumpers.
Besides, the Biblical nativity accounts (in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2) present certain difficulties to begin with, and are often attacked as non-factual. Whereas the accounts of Jesus' adult life, his death, and the resurrection, are full of externally-verifiable historical evidence which help inform a reasoned decision of faith [1], the bits about his birth are decidedly lacking in such support and are dismissed by many scholars as myth and rhetoric carefully angled to support the gospel writers' theological agendas. Many of the objections are arguments from silence -- for example, there is no evidence outside the gospel of Matthew (chapter 2:16-18) that Herod commanded to have all of the male babies in Bethlehem killed. It does not even get a mention in the (voluminous) writings of first century Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, who in general had a lot to say about Herod.
There are some obvious problems with the 'argument from silence' though. For one thing, only a small proportion of ancient world records survive: just because something hasn't been found, it doesn't mean it wasn't written down, and it doesn't mean it won't be discovered in the future. Also, it presupposes that what we consider to be important in hindsight would have seemed equally important at the time. According to Wikipedia, the number of boys in Bethlehem aged 2 and under has been estimated at around 20; the massacre -- whilst obviously a terrible thing -- may simply not have been large-scale enough to be note-worthy alongside the other atrocities committed by Herod during his paranoid, murderous rule (again, see Wikipedia). Moreover, the preoccupying point of interest for Roman historians would have been the progress of the Empire, and a few babies in Bethlehem may simply have seemed an irrelevant digression.
For some parts of the story -- the visits of the Magi and the shepherds, for example -- it is hard to imagine what type of external evidence one might expect to find, especially as these things happened (if they happened) before Jesus was publicly known. The Bible records personal moments, of striking importance to those close to him -- "Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19) and "his father and his mother marvelled at what was said about him" (Luke 2:33) -- but which (at the time) remained hidden from (and irrelevant to) the rest of the world. To all intents and purposes, Jesus appeared to be just another normal baby, the son of a humble carpenter, born in slightly embarrassing circumstances. Even if the ancient world had had a paparazzi, they would not have been remotely interested in Jesus until 30 years or so later. Whatever the process by which Matthew and Luke set about researching Jesus' early life (and I believe, from their documents as a whole, that they did this with integrity and desire to get at the truth), it is not surprising that these parts are historically weak -- they did not appear to be 'historic' events until much later -- but that doesn't mean that they are not true.
The virgin birth falls into the above category. Again, what would historically-verifiable evidence for such a claim even look like? Perhaps if Mary had had a camera phone..."hang on Gabriel, before you go -- one for Instagram?" (cf Luke 1:26-38); or maybe if Jeremy Kyle had been around at the time: "Is Mary really a virgin? Who then really is the father? Join us after the break for what could prove to be life-changing test results"...
Granted, then, that the Biblical birth accounts are not of the same historical nature as other parts of the gospel narrative, can we still believe them? For me, the answer is "yes", because of the Resurrection (the evidence for which, I reiterate, stands up to considerable scrutiny [1]). If Jesus really rose from the dead, then all of a sudden these strange, almost mythical-sounding stories about how he came into the world no longer seem far-fetched. Moreover, if Matthew and Luke believed the later part of the story, they would have had little incentive to fabricate the earlier part -- especially as it is not really 'needed' for the rest of New Testament theology (unlike the Resurrection, which is absolutely central) -- see Tom Wright below (and I really would recommend taking the time to watch this -- it's less than 5 minutes and he puts things into perspective with excellent clarity).
I know this doesn't come close to answering all of the objections or controversies surrounding Jesus' birth [2]. (For example, there's the "different genealogies in Luke and Matthew" problem -- short discussion here). But for me it is at least a good reminder to think about 'the Nativity' in the context of the bigger picture -- the gospel writers present it as a small part of a massive story which they considered to be of great importance, and worth sharing:
[1] Here's a talk by N.T. Wright (which I've linked to before) on the historical reliability of the resurrection accounts. It has a long intro, so you might want to skip the first 9 minutes or so.
[2] Pretty much every time I sit down to write anything I am overwhelmed by how massive and complex a topic I seem to have taken on! But I wanna keep seeking to understand these things more, and I hope that by writing down my scattered thoughts I may at least compile them for myself a little better, even if they're not much use to anyone else (though, I really, really hope they're not specifically unhelpful; and I also lament that people don't tell me what they think more -- this was never meant to be an exercise in "airing my views" and, in the absence of retort, I'm worried it rather looks that way by now...)
I was a cow in my first nativity play. In fact, I was such a spectacular cow (as any who know me might readily imagine) that the next year I was promoted to Mary. [Fast-tracked to my "level of incompetence" or what? Or rather, way beyond my level, skipping several interim incompetencies along the way...my hospitality skills are somewhat lacking, I'm useless with animals, I'm neither wise nor a man...].
Here is another nativity play; the clip featured at the big, shiny, (fire-hazard-y), carol service I went to at our big friendly local Anglican (in true, hip-and-with-it, "it's multimedia all the way now, kids" style).
I laughed a lot -- not least because it called to mind my fabulous dear sister, who (as a child), looked a lot like the protagonist of the piece, and was prone to display similar character, guts, and volume, with similar charming determination.
However -- and I rightly dread what this will do for my growing reputation as someone who obdurately disdains the things in which the rest of the world delights -- I confess that nowadays I have reservations about nativity plays. Don't get me wrong: kids are precious, and cute; sticking them on stage can do wonders for their self-confidence; teaching them about Jesus I am most certainly all for (let's leave discussions about 'brainwashing' concerns for another time)... But the Incarnation, if true, is an event of surpassing import and mystery. It is also an event in history -- that is, it intersects with (and impacts on) real human lives and experiences. Personally, I find it hard to hold on to the reality and depth of the fact that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) when presented with a fictionalised, idealised narrative played out by a bunch of adorable, rowdy mites with tea-towels on their heads and pillows up their jumpers.
Besides, the Biblical nativity accounts (in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2) present certain difficulties to begin with, and are often attacked as non-factual. Whereas the accounts of Jesus' adult life, his death, and the resurrection, are full of externally-verifiable historical evidence which help inform a reasoned decision of faith [1], the bits about his birth are decidedly lacking in such support and are dismissed by many scholars as myth and rhetoric carefully angled to support the gospel writers' theological agendas. Many of the objections are arguments from silence -- for example, there is no evidence outside the gospel of Matthew (chapter 2:16-18) that Herod commanded to have all of the male babies in Bethlehem killed. It does not even get a mention in the (voluminous) writings of first century Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, who in general had a lot to say about Herod.
There are some obvious problems with the 'argument from silence' though. For one thing, only a small proportion of ancient world records survive: just because something hasn't been found, it doesn't mean it wasn't written down, and it doesn't mean it won't be discovered in the future. Also, it presupposes that what we consider to be important in hindsight would have seemed equally important at the time. According to Wikipedia, the number of boys in Bethlehem aged 2 and under has been estimated at around 20; the massacre -- whilst obviously a terrible thing -- may simply not have been large-scale enough to be note-worthy alongside the other atrocities committed by Herod during his paranoid, murderous rule (again, see Wikipedia). Moreover, the preoccupying point of interest for Roman historians would have been the progress of the Empire, and a few babies in Bethlehem may simply have seemed an irrelevant digression.
For some parts of the story -- the visits of the Magi and the shepherds, for example -- it is hard to imagine what type of external evidence one might expect to find, especially as these things happened (if they happened) before Jesus was publicly known. The Bible records personal moments, of striking importance to those close to him -- "Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19) and "his father and his mother marvelled at what was said about him" (Luke 2:33) -- but which (at the time) remained hidden from (and irrelevant to) the rest of the world. To all intents and purposes, Jesus appeared to be just another normal baby, the son of a humble carpenter, born in slightly embarrassing circumstances. Even if the ancient world had had a paparazzi, they would not have been remotely interested in Jesus until 30 years or so later. Whatever the process by which Matthew and Luke set about researching Jesus' early life (and I believe, from their documents as a whole, that they did this with integrity and desire to get at the truth), it is not surprising that these parts are historically weak -- they did not appear to be 'historic' events until much later -- but that doesn't mean that they are not true.
The virgin birth falls into the above category. Again, what would historically-verifiable evidence for such a claim even look like? Perhaps if Mary had had a camera phone..."hang on Gabriel, before you go -- one for Instagram?" (cf Luke 1:26-38); or maybe if Jeremy Kyle had been around at the time: "Is Mary really a virgin? Who then really is the father? Join us after the break for what could prove to be life-changing test results"...
Granted, then, that the Biblical birth accounts are not of the same historical nature as other parts of the gospel narrative, can we still believe them? For me, the answer is "yes", because of the Resurrection (the evidence for which, I reiterate, stands up to considerable scrutiny [1]). If Jesus really rose from the dead, then all of a sudden these strange, almost mythical-sounding stories about how he came into the world no longer seem far-fetched. Moreover, if Matthew and Luke believed the later part of the story, they would have had little incentive to fabricate the earlier part -- especially as it is not really 'needed' for the rest of New Testament theology (unlike the Resurrection, which is absolutely central) -- see Tom Wright below (and I really would recommend taking the time to watch this -- it's less than 5 minutes and he puts things into perspective with excellent clarity).
I know this doesn't come close to answering all of the objections or controversies surrounding Jesus' birth [2]. (For example, there's the "different genealogies in Luke and Matthew" problem -- short discussion here). But for me it is at least a good reminder to think about 'the Nativity' in the context of the bigger picture -- the gospel writers present it as a small part of a massive story which they considered to be of great importance, and worth sharing:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught..." (Luke 1:1-4)
[1] Here's a talk by N.T. Wright (which I've linked to before) on the historical reliability of the resurrection accounts. It has a long intro, so you might want to skip the first 9 minutes or so.
[2] Pretty much every time I sit down to write anything I am overwhelmed by how massive and complex a topic I seem to have taken on! But I wanna keep seeking to understand these things more, and I hope that by writing down my scattered thoughts I may at least compile them for myself a little better, even if they're not much use to anyone else (though, I really, really hope they're not specifically unhelpful; and I also lament that people don't tell me what they think more -- this was never meant to be an exercise in "airing my views" and, in the absence of retort, I'm worried it rather looks that way by now...)
Comments
I, too, am saddened that what we *do* at Christmas doesn't come close to communicating any of this. I do a good job of complaining about this every year but little to be a part of the solution. (It is unlikely that moping around drinking slightly too much and making grumpy remarks about all the unwanted 'stuff' I'm going to have to find space for in my house helps any…)
Here's wishing you a Merry Incarnation-Remembering-Celebration and a Happy New Year.