The Birth Myth – Part 4: Conflicting Stories December 16, 2009
Posted by Matt in Christian Beliefs, Christmas.Tags: birth narratives, conflicting stories, Gabriel, gospel, Jesus, Joseph, Luke, Mary, Matthew, myth, nativity
trackback
What comes to mind when you think of the story of the birth of Jesus? A manger in Bethlehem? Shepherds and wise men? Angelic announcements and special stars?
The truth of the matter is that we know far less than one might think about the supposed event. The birth is covered in only two of the four gospels and those stories have more differences than they do similarities, making our popular version of the birth narrative a conglomeration of these two works.
Before delving into the comparison of the gospel accounts, let us consider the absence of birth stories from earlier writings. The first books of the New Testament canon to be written were the works of Paul, none of which contain reference to the miraculous birth. The earliest gospel is that of Mark, whose account begins with the baptism of Jesus and has no mention of the birth. It is not until the books of Matthew and Luke, written decades after the crucifixion, that the birth stories are put on paper.
Luke’s account includes the miracle birth story of John the Baptist, a tale that goes untold in the other four works. John’s father, Zechariah, is a priest and his wife, Elizabeth, is barren and past the age of childbearing. One day while in the temple, the angel Gabriel appears to him and announces that he will have a son, thus setting up the first miraculous birth story.
Both Luke and Matthew record angelic announcements of Jesus’ coming, though the actual stories themselves differ greatly. According to Luke, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary and tells her that she will bear a child by the Holy Spirit and that they will name him Jesus. Matthew tells of an unnamed angel who appears to Joseph when he considers divorcing his pregnant fiancée, telling him that the child is from the Holy Spirit and he will be named Jesus. Thus begets the first conundrum in the birth stories – which of the angelic encounters happened, or perhaps did both of them happen? If both of them did occur as written, why did the angels see fit to repeat the same things to each of the future parents? Could the account in Matthew, in which the angel appears to Joseph, have been added to placate a patriarchal society?
The gospel of Luke tells the manger story, in which the couple goes to the town of Bethlehem for the census and the baby Jesus is born in a manger because there was no room at the inn.
Luke 2:4-7
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem, the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them at the inn.
Matthew tells us a different story, one that takes place directly after the angel appears to Joseph.
Matt 1:24-25
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Matt 2:1a
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea…
A few things jump out on a careful reading. First of all, Luke seems to say that Joseph and Mary are still unmarried when Jesus is born, while Matthew tells of the couple getting married immediately after the angel spoke, with Jesus being born later. Secondly, Luke says that the couple are from Nazareth, but they travel to Bethlehem for the census and are forced to have the baby in a manger. Matthew makes no mention of a manger, but instead says that Joseph takes his bride home and that she later has a baby in Bethlehem. This short account and the one of the magi which we will talk about next, seem to assert that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, while Luke states that their home was in Nazareth. The common practice has been to shove the two stories together into one and gloss over any pesky details that get in the way, but I wonder if that is actually the best way to go about things.
Next: The Visitors
Matt, so far in your analysis, I see no irreconcilable differences. Each author seems to have chosen different events to share or highlight.
Though I realize it is impossible to do completely, I was trying to divorce myself from the teachings on the gospels that I have received my entire life and read them without the presupposition that they should fit together. That is why I was looking for the differences. They can be reconciled, but when you try to read them carefully from the perspective of someone on the “outside,” the differences appear more pronounced.
Patrick – what do you mean by not seeing irreconcilable differences? it seems rather clear that both gospels share bits and pieces of story that are disconnected. i would love to hear your thoughts!
LLL, what I mean is that while they are sharing “bits and pieces that are disconnected”, they are not in conflict with one another. The only parts of the birth narrative that I believe are in conflict are the genealogies. It is not in conflict for one account to mention shepherds and one to mention the wise men. Just because both accounts didn’t mention both visitors doesn’t mean that both sets of visitors are fictional/mythological.
Patrick–
By joining the words fictional and mythological with simply a slashline you are doing exactly what Matt talked about in the introduction — that is, giving the word myth a negative connotation. Matt has never said that these events are or might be fictional.
Let’s use the phrase “Inspired by true events”. Or if we don’t like the “I” word, “Based on a true story”.
Diana’s right, “fiction” does not equal “myth.”
Though mythical events may not have actually happened, they are still “true” in a more profound, metaphorical sense.
@Matt, I think you should explain more of what you mean by mythical events being true in a profound, metaphorical sense.
David,
I think we can start by asking a question: What is the purpose of this story?
Is it an accurate, factual account of a historical event or should it be looked upon as a story that signifies somthing deeper?
Miraculous birth narratives, such as those told about Isaac, John the Baptist, and Jesus, are important because they set their subjects apart as people of the utmost importance. Jesus’ birth story is rife with symbolism, from the star and angelic hosts shining a light in the dark to the visiting shepherds and magi who came to see the newborn baby.
Thus, the concept can be true – that Jesus was an important person who fulfilled Matthew’s vision of a “king” and Luke’s vision of a “radical social prophet” and who shined a light in the dark through his teaching – without burdening the story with the weight of historic accuracy.
There is another idea that I neglected to mention earlier that we might as well put out there for discussion now. These gospel accounts are generally dated to have been written no earlier than 60 AD, which is obviously several decades removed from when the birth event supposedly occurred. Also, unless Matthew and Luke were in their 80′s and had gone through a major career change at some point, they were probably not eyewitnesses to the birth. So, it seems as though it can be safely assumed that their accounts were based on stories passed down over the years. Were these stories accurate or were they changed to appeal to different groups of people or to express certain messages?
Just some food for thought.
@ Diana,
myth
/mɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mith] Show IPA
Use myth in a Sentence
See web results for myth
See images of myth
–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
By this definition, found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth, the two are synonymous. Just because Matt doesn’t want them to be the same doesn’t make them not the same. Granted, definition 1 seems to apply in this case.
Matt, while you continue to imply that these are false but true (i.e. false but true in the “metaphorical” sense) I don’t know that you can have Jesus without his divinity. From where did his divinity come? If Jesus were just the bastard son of a poor Nazarene carpenter and his young bride, then whence came his divinity? Are we all divine? I know that you want to point out that the “metastory” is what is important here, but if you start throwing out things, what else is thrown out? We cannot prove the resurrection. Was that real? Are you saving that analysis for Easter? If Jesus was not raised from the dead, we are to be pitied for our belief.
Granted, you are correct about definition one. Myth, in this instance, is a philosophical term. I guess that including the other definitions helps you to discredit my chosen word, even if its easily apparent that isn’t what was meant.
It is obvious that you did not understand anything that I’ve written in the past week. I don’t claim to have any answers, but I think that I do raise valid questions from an informed viewpoint. Perhaps you disagree. Maybe you think I’m ignorant and spend to much time with my nose in a book. Maybe, like some other emailers and spammed commenters, you would call me a false teacher and a bad parent and someone with their ticket already punched for hell, and that’s your prerogative.
The final conclusion on my part is that I don’t know everything. I do not understand every nuance of every action that has ever and will ever take place under the sun. And I can live with that, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop questioning and trying to learn as much as I can in the short time I have on this earth.
Maybe I will work on the resurrection myth for Easter…
Don’t worry Patrick. You have my pity, already.
DM. I appreciate your pity. Your response drips with condescension. I understand that you have rejected the faith of your youth because you have become more informed. Don’t leap to conclusions as you did with Beth.
Matt, Have I ever called you a bad parent? Have I ever called you a false teacher? Have I ever told you that you are going to hell? I have publicly defended you on here and argued with you on here. You know my admiration of your life lived out as you teach. You have a life and family. If anyone has their nose in a book, I can attest that I spend as much time as I can reading as much as I can about many different things. Much the same way you do. I appreciate that you admit that you don’t know everything. Neither do I.
I have tried to contribute to the discussion. If the virgin birth is not literally true, rather it is metaphorically true what are the implications? Can we rely on the resurrection? Can we rely on the bible? As DM puts it, why not follow Zeus or Baal or any number of other gods? As Beth put it, at some point you have to decide what your standard is and measure things against that. Ryan pointed out that even if the scientific process is your standard, you have to put faith in that.
Come on man! You are way to intelligent to use words in sloppy ways. On some subjects you are one of the most informed people I know. On others, not so much. You know the connotations of using the word myth. What impact are you having on those who are questioning their faith. Are you searching or stirring the pot? What do you believe?
Patrick, I don’t know what either of you are talking about with jumping to conclusions. Don’t make this personal because I don’t know you as a person. But I read what you wrote just like I read what she wrote, and I judged the argument expressed. If you are trying to form an argument to counter Matt’s myth analysis, you are failing. The most you have is “if the birth is a myth then maybe other stuff is too.” That is not a reason to disagree with Matt.
And for real, did you read what Matt actually wrote about the truth value of myth? I didn’t think it was that hard.
Can I ask a question without anyone being mean to me? Maybe I missed this in one of the posts, but what was the truth value in the nativity myth specifically? Is it just that Jesus was a “special” person? If that’s it, then what was so special about him?
Jeff, Jesus is special because he taught a radical way of living, one that was countercultural and unusual. He taught that love was paramount and that everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or social standing, had value. The collection of teachings in the Sermon on the Mount is full of subversive and beautiful lessons.
The nativity is an origin story. You might even compare it to the Creation myth in Genesis, a story that I think we can all agree is not literal, but that carries with it the metaphorical truth that God is real and powerful and the ultimate source of all things.
So is Jesus any more special than any other social leader? Ghandi? Martin Luther King? What makes him more special than them, or, if he’s not, why study him so much more than others?
What is with the obsession with making him more special? Why can’t you be happy with living the way a special moral teacher taught you to live? Why do you have to believe the myths surrounding him?
DM. I think that part of it has to do with the claims Jesus made about himself. He claimed to be special. If he lied, then what kind of trust can be put in his message? The difference is that he claimed to be the son of God and equal with God. None of the other moral teachers I know of did that and thus they are not held to as high a standard. There is a lot more to Christianity than moral teachings.
I feel out of place saying this because from your blog, you grew up knowing this and have rejected it. You are probably much more informed about the faith I have (your old one) and the faith you now have (which I don’t know).
@D.M. Manes
1.)I’m not making him anything, he either was/is or wasn’t/isn’t.
2.)A person can be happy living any way they like, following any leader they like. Moral or otherwise. I might be happy living however I want to, doing whatever I want to, whenever I want to. If I’m going to choose not to do that, I would like to choose the best special moral teacher to follow. God on Earth would be the best choice. If that’s not an option, it opens the field up a little.
3.)I’m not required to believe anything. What I would like to do is form the best conclusion possible from the evidence available. So I need to know why I would choose to believe the nativity as metaphorical truth, just like I need to know why I would choose to believe it as literal truth. I also need to reason along both of those paths to see what the consequences of each one would be. Then accept whatever is most consistent.
4.)Patrick is right about one thing. You’re condescending.
@Patrick, the C.S. Lewis argument is missing the most likely option – Jesus never claimed to be God; those stories evolved over time in the decades after his death and were finalized at Nicaea.
@jwisdom, don’t interpret anything I say personally. I constantly have to explain myself to Christians when I talk religion with them, but nothing I say is meant personally. When I say it is reasonable to view certain Christian traditions as myth, don’t view that as condescending. If you disagree, just give some reasons why and I am happy to engage.
My internet just came back up for the first time since early this morning, so I’m just now getting caught up on everyone’s comments.
One thing that sets Jesus apart from Ghandi or MLK Jr. is that he founded the religion that has dominated the Western world for most the the past two millennium. That is one reason why we study him more than the others. I would venture to guess that in other cultures they study other great social leaders more than him.
I thought about mentioning the resurrection story when talking about why Jesus is special and think that is what both Jeff and Patrick are looking for, but I’m not going to touch that just yet except to say that it is a unique characteristic of him.
Patrick, though I don’t think what I said last night was incorrect, I do think it was a bit over-aggressive and antagonistic. For that, I want to apologize. I think it may have been the Merlot talking…
@D.M.
It’s not that you said it’s reasonable to view some Christian traditions as myth. Matt’s been saying that all along and he hasn’t sounded condescending at all. It’s in the way you respond and ask questions. “Why do you believe Jesus needs to be more special?” is not a condescending question. “What is with the obsession with making him more special?” is.
It doesn’t have to be the resurrection necessarily, but I do think the critical question is whether or not Jesus was merely human or actually God come to Earth. If it’s true that Jesus never claimed that and those stories arose years after he died, then we need to approach him completely differently than if he really was God.
@jwisdom, you’ll have to believe me when I say I don’t mean to condescend. I come from full-contact debate and nothing offends me so I don’t always realize when I am being offensive. My question was an honest one. Yes, I am well aware of the widespread desire of most religions to have their founder be “more special” than the others; however, it still baffles me. I really don’t understand it. I mean I don’t understand the thought process to go from point A to point “more special,” and I don’t understand why the religion stands or falls on that point.
Even when I was a Christian, it baffled me. I’ve been studying the Bible for forever, and this was the type of Jesus I saw depicted there. He preached love and acceptance; he required action and demanded social justice; he called the self-righteous religious people names and gave them condescending answers; he was totally unimpressed with traditional religion based on doctrine and dogma.
For a long time while I was a Christian, it wasn’t important whether he was divine or not. Scapegoat theology is backwards by today’s standards and divine incarnation is incredible now anyway (the bad kind of incredible). I think Christianity could be a viable ethical and philosophical system without any supernatural basis whatsoever, and I would probably subscribe to it.
I never saw Jesus as the kind of teacher who would emphasize the right set of beliefs or the right doctrine. I mean, when did he ever talk about that stuff? Whenever anyone asked him questions, he brushed them aside as unimportant (i.e. John 4:21).
I have a question for you: do you think that Christianity stands or falls depending on whether Jesus was divine or not?
More specifically: assume for the sake of argument that Jesus was definitely not divine; are the principles he taught still worth abiding by?
I always thought it was strange when Christians thought Christianity was worthless without a divine founder. If they really think that, then it seems they don’t think that the principles of Christianity were valuable in and of themselves without divine endorsement and that makes the whole idea of God seem kind of arbitrary in general.
I think that if Jesus is not divine, then Christianity falls. I believe that because I believe that Christianity’s central theme is not love, acceptance, and social justice on this Earth between humans, although those things are vitally important to it. I believe that Christianity’s central theme is that of love, grace, salvation, and reconciliation between humans and God.
Obviously, if Jesus were only a great moral teacher, and if the only sayings accurately attributed to him are those about loving each other, accepting each other, and social justice, and everything else is a later product of his growing myth, then the grace, salvation, and reconciliation stuff is not only inaccurate but unnecessary. So, in that sense, Christianity as a religion fails. There is no more reason to worship Jesus than there is any other man, and God, whatever that means, is just as unknowable as what exists beyond the boundaries of the Universe. ‘God’ could mean all-powerful Diety, or it could mean the collective spark of human spirit. The love, acceptance, and social justice principles would still be worth living by, but I would definitely advocate doing away with such arbitrary titles as ‘Christian’ since those exact same principles can be found any number of places including many much smaller and easier to read books. Frankly, we should all just be Humanists.
Although I might also start to question what makes those teachings of Jesus moral and the teachings of others immoral since so many of Jesus teachings seem to go against my instincts (eg. my instinct is to punch my enemies).
Really it’s not the ideas of love, acceptance, and social justice that are worthless without a divine founder it’s everything else that Christians base their beliefs on.
So it’s understandable to me, that if a person rejects Christ’s divinity, but wants to maintain his greatness as a historical figure, they will focus on his social message.
I also believe that the idea that ‘Jesus didn’t actually claim to be the son of God, that just grew over time’ comes from looking back at the beginnings of Christianity with a desire to leave all supernatural elements out of the analysis. I get that. I’m a science guy, and I completely understand that science by necessity is trying to find the natural explanation for phenomena. But that also makes it utterly useless if there is such a thing as the supernatural, and it really does come in contact with the natural world. So if he were actually divine, it should make it more probable that the other sayings attributed to him were accurate for all of the reasons the apologists, that we’ve all probably read give, which leads to the more conventional understanding of the Bible with which we are all familiar (understand this to mean the major tenants of Christian belief held across all denominations.)
I can understand the appeal of both points of view, and I can see where they come from.What I can’t see, is how they might be compatible with one another. Those who hold that Jesus was a great moral teacher only should be offended and appalled by the intolerance and ignorance of the second, and those who hold that Jesus was divine should reject the first since it calls their God false.
Which is why I said earlier, that the critical question was the divinity of Jesus. Our acceptance or rejection of that is what determines the rest of what we believe on the subject. And making a decision on what we believe about this seems pretty important no matter which way we choose.