Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 2:02am
The greatest story never told
Column: A Heretic in Babylon
The wonderfully rich tradition of Christmas we enjoy today is a perfect example of how myths evolve over time. There are two different nativity stories in the Gospels, but modern Christians (perhaps without thinking) harmonized them into a single story. The story of Jesus' birth, re-enacted each year in church plays, is a composite myth. Christmas, it seems, continues to evolve.
In fact, Christmas, as a celebration of the birth of Jesus, didn't exist before the fourth century CE. Orthodox Christians of that era, in an attempt to crush paganism once and for all, assigned dates to Christmas and Easter that corresponded to yearly pagan celebrations. The winter solstice became Christmas, and the spring equinox became Easter. Prior to the fourth century, however, there was no formal celebration of the birth of Jesus.
There were no stories about Jesus' birth at the beginning either. We know that Jesus' earliest disciples knew of no nativity stories, because no stories exist in any of the earliest literature: The Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel that scholars call the Gospel of "Q". Both of these texts were written around 50 CE, but even the first narrative Gospel, The Gospel of Mark, written 20 years later, also lacks a nativity story. Neither does The Gospel of John record any legends about Jesus' birth.
The apostle Paul wrote during the fifth and sixth decades of the first century, and he too was unaware of any legends about the birth of Jesus. Certainly Paul would have approved of, and referenced, Matthew and Luke's later stories because they, like he, linked Jesus to Old Testament prophecies about a future Jewish Messiah who would arise out of the linage of David, Israel's first king. In fact, the authors of Matthew and Luke, writing a half-century later, probably got the idea from Paul's writings.
In fact, Matthew and Luke wrote their nativity stories for the specific purpose of linking Jesus to biblical prophecy. Matthew went so far as to invent an entire lineage of Jesus, going all the way back to the Hebrew patriarch, Abraham. Luke's Gospel lacks a formal lineage, but still connects Jesus to the royal house of David. And since Bethlehem was the ancient city of David, both authors have Jesus being born there.
Matthew's version of the nativity story includes either direct quotes from, or specific allusions to, the Old Testament books of Exodus, II Samuel, Psalms, Micah, Hosea, and Jeremiah. Luke adds Genesis, Judges, Habakkuk, Deuteronomy, and Job. Thus, each Christian evangelist, in his own way, cleverly connected Jesus to Israel's Patriarchs (Abraham and Moses), its Law (Torah), and its prophets — the sum total of Israel's religious and political history.
One striking feature of Matthew's lineage of Jesus is that it includes four women. These are not just any women, however. It seems strange at first that three of the four women were not even Israelites, and the fourth woman was not married to an Israelite. If they were not even Jews, what was the author's point in naming these specific women? It turns out that each of these women played a key role in Israel's history, so Matthew's intent was to show that even Gentiles and women could be instruments of God's will. Matthew's story was also a thinly veiled rebuke of Judaism for rejecting Jesus as its Messiah.
Luke's Gospel has no list of Jesus' supposed ancestors, but invents a miracle story about the birth of John the Baptist, who Luke will go on to say was the harbinger of the Messiah, Jesus. Luke makes John a relative of Jesus by telling a story in which the angel Gabriel visits Zechariah and Elizabeth (supposedly Mary's sister) and tells them that Elizabeth is about to find herself with child by the Holy Spirit. Given the fact that the couple is now very old, this conception was nothing short of a miracle. Thus, Elizabeth joins the ranks of special women through whom God works his will for humanity.
Gabriel's next stop is the home of Mary of Nazareth, a virgin, who is betrothed to Joseph. Gabriel informs Mary of the good news about Elizabeth and states that she, too, will be with child by the Holy Spirit, and her child will be nothing less than the savior of the world.
The authors of Matthew and Luke had very good reasons for making Jesus' mother a virgin. Since early Christianity was competing against Greek and Roman mystery religions at the end of the first century, the two Christian evangelists had to make Jesus at least equal to other god/men who were born to virgins. In fact, nearly all of the elements of Matthew and Luke's nativity stories can be found in the birth stories of other world saviors.
But Matthew and Luke had an even more serious reason for making Jesus' mother a virgin: They wanted to counteract the rumors that Jesus had been an illegitimate child. Since Joseph is not mentioned in any other Gospel, and because he plays no continuing role even in Matthew and Luke's Gospels, scholars have concluded that he is a fiction, invented almost a century after the fact.
Had Joseph been a real person, Jesus would have been known as Jesus bar (son of) Joseph, instead of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels also tell us that Jesus had brothers and sisters, so it appears that Mary continued to give birth to children without benefit of a husband. For early Christians, the birth of Jesus was no less a scandal than his crucifixion. Matthew and Luke, by necessity, wrote an imaginary history of Jesus' life, beginning with a fictional story about his birth.
With this basic background about the nativity stories, I'll continue next week by discussing the specifics of those stories: the magical star; the magi; the location of the humble birth, and the angelic annunciations.
— — —
Richard Hooper is a former Lutheran pastor and the author of "The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene" and "The Gospel of the Unknown Jesus." His email is {email Richard@sanctuarypublications.com}Richard@sanctuarypublications.com{/email}. © copyright 2006 by Richard Hooper
In fact, Christmas, as a celebration of the birth of Jesus, didn't exist before the fourth century CE. Orthodox Christians of that era, in an attempt to crush paganism once and for all, assigned dates to Christmas and Easter that corresponded to yearly pagan celebrations. The winter solstice became Christmas, and the spring equinox became Easter. Prior to the fourth century, however, there was no formal celebration of the birth of Jesus.
There were no stories about Jesus' birth at the beginning either. We know that Jesus' earliest disciples knew of no nativity stories, because no stories exist in any of the earliest literature: The Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel that scholars call the Gospel of "Q". Both of these texts were written around 50 CE, but even the first narrative Gospel, The Gospel of Mark, written 20 years later, also lacks a nativity story. Neither does The Gospel of John record any legends about Jesus' birth.
The apostle Paul wrote during the fifth and sixth decades of the first century, and he too was unaware of any legends about the birth of Jesus. Certainly Paul would have approved of, and referenced, Matthew and Luke's later stories because they, like he, linked Jesus to Old Testament prophecies about a future Jewish Messiah who would arise out of the linage of David, Israel's first king. In fact, the authors of Matthew and Luke, writing a half-century later, probably got the idea from Paul's writings.
In fact, Matthew and Luke wrote their nativity stories for the specific purpose of linking Jesus to biblical prophecy. Matthew went so far as to invent an entire lineage of Jesus, going all the way back to the Hebrew patriarch, Abraham. Luke's Gospel lacks a formal lineage, but still connects Jesus to the royal house of David. And since Bethlehem was the ancient city of David, both authors have Jesus being born there.
Matthew's version of the nativity story includes either direct quotes from, or specific allusions to, the Old Testament books of Exodus, II Samuel, Psalms, Micah, Hosea, and Jeremiah. Luke adds Genesis, Judges, Habakkuk, Deuteronomy, and Job. Thus, each Christian evangelist, in his own way, cleverly connected Jesus to Israel's Patriarchs (Abraham and Moses), its Law (Torah), and its prophets — the sum total of Israel's religious and political history.
One striking feature of Matthew's lineage of Jesus is that it includes four women. These are not just any women, however. It seems strange at first that three of the four women were not even Israelites, and the fourth woman was not married to an Israelite. If they were not even Jews, what was the author's point in naming these specific women? It turns out that each of these women played a key role in Israel's history, so Matthew's intent was to show that even Gentiles and women could be instruments of God's will. Matthew's story was also a thinly veiled rebuke of Judaism for rejecting Jesus as its Messiah.
Luke's Gospel has no list of Jesus' supposed ancestors, but invents a miracle story about the birth of John the Baptist, who Luke will go on to say was the harbinger of the Messiah, Jesus. Luke makes John a relative of Jesus by telling a story in which the angel Gabriel visits Zechariah and Elizabeth (supposedly Mary's sister) and tells them that Elizabeth is about to find herself with child by the Holy Spirit. Given the fact that the couple is now very old, this conception was nothing short of a miracle. Thus, Elizabeth joins the ranks of special women through whom God works his will for humanity.
Gabriel's next stop is the home of Mary of Nazareth, a virgin, who is betrothed to Joseph. Gabriel informs Mary of the good news about Elizabeth and states that she, too, will be with child by the Holy Spirit, and her child will be nothing less than the savior of the world.
The authors of Matthew and Luke had very good reasons for making Jesus' mother a virgin. Since early Christianity was competing against Greek and Roman mystery religions at the end of the first century, the two Christian evangelists had to make Jesus at least equal to other god/men who were born to virgins. In fact, nearly all of the elements of Matthew and Luke's nativity stories can be found in the birth stories of other world saviors.
But Matthew and Luke had an even more serious reason for making Jesus' mother a virgin: They wanted to counteract the rumors that Jesus had been an illegitimate child. Since Joseph is not mentioned in any other Gospel, and because he plays no continuing role even in Matthew and Luke's Gospels, scholars have concluded that he is a fiction, invented almost a century after the fact.
Had Joseph been a real person, Jesus would have been known as Jesus bar (son of) Joseph, instead of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels also tell us that Jesus had brothers and sisters, so it appears that Mary continued to give birth to children without benefit of a husband. For early Christians, the birth of Jesus was no less a scandal than his crucifixion. Matthew and Luke, by necessity, wrote an imaginary history of Jesus' life, beginning with a fictional story about his birth.
With this basic background about the nativity stories, I'll continue next week by discussing the specifics of those stories: the magical star; the magi; the location of the humble birth, and the angelic annunciations.
— — —
Richard Hooper is a former Lutheran pastor and the author of "The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene" and "The Gospel of the Unknown Jesus." His email is {email Richard@sanctuarypublications.com}Richard@sanctuarypublications.com{/email}. © copyright 2006 by Richard Hooper