QotW: Is the Christmas story real history?
Hey all, I just received a really good question that relates to the Christmas season. Here it is:
The nativity story has been on my mind, and it feels so distant, like a fairy tale. It seems impossible for it to be true. The birth, the star, the angels, even Jesus’ whole life seems like a bedtime story, and not real history to me. I was wondering if that’s normal, and if you have any resources or info about it. It would help a lot!
First of all, I think it is great that this person is thinking through the issues of faith, and has the courage to ask hard questions. There is nothing shameful about having doubts, as they are really opportunities to thoughtfully consider what you believe, and a chance to really own your faith. As a mentor once told me, doubts are like standing on one foot…it can seem scary and precarious, but having a chance to work through them, it is actually an opportunity to take a step forward in faith.
As for the question itself, when it comes to the nativity story, I think this person is actually right to question what we’ve created the tone of the story to be…as Alistair commented on Sunday, we’ve turned it into this idyllic scene that is meant for Christmas cards and not real life, where all these picture-perfect animals and picture-perfect human beings nearly glow in the dark and have halos around their heads. But when we read the New Testament record of these events, that is not exactly what we read, because our version of the Christmas story leaves out so many of the negative aspects. In the Bible, there are plenty of descriptions of the realness of the event. We read of Mary being troubled by the angel’s news that she will bear Jesus (Luke 1:29), of Mary and Joseph having to give birth in a place reserved for animals (Luke 2:7 - imagine a modern day pregnant woman giving birth in a barn, not a high-tech hospital…not exactly idyllic), Herod trying to deceive the wise men so that he can kill the baby (Matthew 2:3-7), and of him killing all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were under the age of 2 (Matthew 2:16 - imagine the tragedy of this!). We have to remember that the Bible doesn’t actually speak in the idyllic terms that we’ve added to Jesus’ birth…it records what happened, but doesn’t add the aura that we’ve attached to the day. When you think about it, it was actually a pretty grungy way for a kid to be born. I found this video to be helpful in thinking about it: http://www.worshiphousemedia.com/mini-movies/11723/Retooning-The-Nativity
Also, I found the song “Labor of Love” off the album “Behold the Lamb of God” by Andrew Peterson (my favorite Christmas CD) to be pretty striking, and a bit more realistic. Listen to the words of it (I don’t love this video, but it writes out the words, which is helpful):
So, as for the Nativity, I think we have added a lot to the story, especially with respect to the tone. The Bible doesn’t have those elements. It does, however, include some pretty miraculous elements with the birth of Jesus: a virgin conception, angels speaking to Mary and Joseph, angels speaking to shepherds, and a magnificent star. So, in a sense, it mixes the ordinary and grungy with the extraordinary…
I guess the bigger picture question this person is asking is this: did the miraculous really happen? Or is the Bible just a fairy tale story? Or, to put it another way, is the Bible a reliable source of information? Interestingly, the Bible itself claims to be eyewitness history to the life of Jesus: Luke writes in the beginning of Luke, “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” And Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:16, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” So we find that Luke is claiming to have gathered eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus and Peter claims that he himself walked and talked with Jesus, and witnessed what happened. And both of these books, according to scholars, were written in the AD 60s.
So, one of the questions for all of us is this: are these guys telling the truth? For the same Luke who claims to have carefully investigated these matters and recorded the testimonies of eyewitnesses is the one who writes of the virgin conception, Jesus’ miracles, and ultimately, his resurrection from the dead. So, is the Bible actually the testimony of eyewitnesses? If it isn’t, then it probably wouldn’t be too wise to trust much of it (including the miraculous), for if they lied about being eyewitnesses, who’s to say they weren’t lying about more? But if the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, or those who had close contact with them, and was being circulated while people who had witnessed Jesus’ life were still alive (and thus could contradict what was recorded), then it is safe to say that what has been recorded has been vetted by numerous eyewitnesses and actually happened…
So, the question is really less about what it sounds like, and more about whether the Bible can be trusted. In other words, truth is judged by the objective (whether it happened or not) as opposed to the subjective (what it feels like). And how do we check on the reliability of the Bible? Well, I might start with the first few chapters of the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, which talk about such questions as, “Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted?” and “Do the biographies of Jesus stand up to scrutiny?” If you want a copy of this, and don’t have it, just shoot me an e-mail and I’ll get you one…
Great question. Keep them coming.
Leave a Reply
