In the previous two posts I discussed some potential issues with the two stories of Jesus’ birth (Christmas!) as told in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Most people are not aware there is yet another version of Jesus’ birth that did not make it into the Bible. It is in a document called the Protoevangelium of James, or more simply, the Proto-gospel of James. It is also sometimes called the Infancy Gospel of James. Think of “proto” as meaning “prequel” because that is what it is in some sense. You see, long before modern movie series like Star Wars there were prequels! People always are interested in the backstory. This proto-gospel goes back to the birth of Jesus’ mother Mary, who I am sure you are aware became a quite venerated figure in the church, so it is natural that people wanted to know more about her. This gospel can be found online and I encourage you to read it in full – it’s quite interesting. You can find it on sites like www.gospels.net or www.earlychristianwritings.com.
I don’t want to spoil it by revealing the whole story, but let me summarize a few points. Mary herself, like Jesus, has a miraculous birth. She ends up growing up in the temple, with divine help.[1] However, as she approaches womanhood she has to leave[2], so they have a contest in which Joseph is miraculously chosen to be her husband. Joseph is portrayed as an older man with sons, in order to explain why the other Gospels say Jesus had brothers and sisters even though Mary was to remain a virgin in the developing tradition.
Eventually the story follows the Biblical versions with an angel telling Mary that she will become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, and Joseph also being told this in a dream. An interesting addition is that the chief priest finds out that Mary is pregnant and confronts them, and Mary has to pass a test to prove she really did conceive as a virgin. (Don’t worry – she passes the test!)
As in the Luke version they head to Bethlehem, but they stop off in a cave, not a stable (which is never actually mentioned in Luke’s story). Joseph goes off to find a midwife to assist with the delivery, and briefly time stands still as Jesus is being born. Wow! They really should include that in one of the movie renditions. Joseph brings back the midwife and they find Jesus with his mother. The midwife, Salome, is stunned but incredulous. She has to check Mary herself before she will believe that she is a virgin. She performs an exam but because of her lack of faith her arm begins to painfully wither away. She cries out for help and an angel tells her to pick up Jesus, and so she is healed. Praise God! They really should make a movie using this version of the story. The story continues mostly as in the other Gospels. One interesting twist is that when Herod sends his soldiers to kill the male children in Bethlehem (as in Matthew) Mary saves Jesus not by fleeing to Egypt but by wrapping him up and placing him in a manger, thus explaining Luke’s description of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger. It may also be intended to explain how the family remained in the area so that Mary could present Jesus in the temple, as described in Luke, while ignoring Matthew’s idea that they fled to Egypt to avoid the slaughter. We are also told that John the Baptist’s mother was also in Bethlehem and escaped with miraculous help, leading to an additional story about the death of John the Baptist’s father as a result, which is used to explain how Simeon came to be serving in the temple when Jesus is brought in by Joseph and Mary as described in Luke.
Thus this version tries to provide some backstory and explain some loose ends and tie parts of Matthew and Luke together. You really should read the whole story to appreciate all the details. It is an interesting take on the birth story (and I really would like to see the movies incorporate some of this!). But is there any history or reality behind it? Or is it just historical fiction, written to fill out the story of Mary and Jesus? It may have been popular in the early church and probably promoted the veneration of Mary and the concept of her perpetual virginity: that she was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. Some of the elements of the story even found their way into the Qur’an, showing its popularity and influence. But eventually it was formally rejected and condemned by the church. I have not heard of any modern scholars who think it has any historical basis. It appears to be, in their opinion, historical fiction.
So, did some early Christian just make up this version of the story? It would seem so. Now, that doesn’t mean some aspiring author sat down and composed it off the top of his (or her) head, although that is possible. Often in folk lore there are stories told and circulated which grow and accumulate more details over time. Perhaps someone speculated that Mary must have been special herself, and someone else picks up on that and elaborates on it so as to seem an authentic report of actual events as it gets passed along. Perhaps the idea of Jesus being born in a cave was based on people actually using caves as emergency shelter in similar situations. And so forth. I have seen modern examples of this phenomenon, where stories are told in sermons or otherwise, probably just as illustrations, but get passed along by the hearers as actual events, even when those stories don’t make sense from a rational or even theological perspective. I had a Christian friend tell me such a story, and when I called him on it he swore it was true because he heard it from a Christian friend of his. After all, a CHRISTIAN would never tell a story that isn’t true, would they?!
Well, is that a valid assertion? Even if you are sincere in telling a story, if the story has no basis in reality is it still a lie? Or at least a mistake? Have you ever repeated a story only to find out later that it was not true? (No, I don’t mean to accuse you of gossip, but we all repeat stories for various reasons at times.)
But, surely the early Christians would not DELIBERATELY make up stories about Jesus and his disciples, would they? Well, let’s look at some evidence.
The Gospel of Thomas is a list of sayings of Jesus purportedly recorded by his disciple Thomas. For example, “Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man” (#7). Or: Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her [Mary] in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (#114). Did Jesus really say such things? If not, where did such sayings come from? Somebody had to invent them.
The Acts of John includes a funny story about how the apostle John commands the bedbugs to leave his room at an inn and lets them back in the next morning (I’m sure the next occupant appreciated that!). The Acts of Paul and Thecla contain a number of great stories about Thecla being miraculously saved from execution, like when lightning strikes the bloodthirsty seals about to attack her. In The Acts of Peter the apostle restores a smoked tuna to life and confronts a magician who is able to fly (although Peter then knocks him out of the air). These stories all testify to the miraculous abilities of those appointed by Jesus, but does anyone today believe they are factual? Someone had to invent these stories.
Returning to Thomas, he was also said to have written The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It contains some entertaining stories about Jesus as a boy. One time Jesus made some clay sparrows on a Sabbath, and when called to account for violating the Sabbath he makes the sparrows fly away with a clap of His hands. Worse yet, He kills a child for bumping into Him, and then blinds those in the village that dare to accuse Him. Whoa! Do you think Jesus really did such things? If not, then someone had to create these stories, and it appears to be Christians that did so. The book was not written to criticize Jesus: as the story progresses Jesus learns to use his power for good, and it culminates in young Jesus discussing the Scriptures in the temple with the elders there, as also cited in Luke 2:41-52. Did the Infancy Gospel borrow the story of Jesus in the temple from Luke, or vice versa, or perhaps they both got it from an earlier source? And is the story factual, in contrast to the other stories in the Infancy Gospel? Or is this evidence that invented stories also made it into the New Testament?
If you do not accept these non-canonical stories as factual, then you clearly believe that early Christians were willing to invent stories in support of their cause. But did the authors of the Gospels effectively weed out the false stories and retain only true stories? How would we know? The faithful will hold that the Holy Spirit would make sure that only the true stories would make it into the Bible, but then how does one explain the problems and differences (contradictions?) in the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke (see the previous two posts), as well as the rest of the Gospels? (The resurrection stories are interesting to compare, but I’ll save that for Easter.)
I would argue that there are stories in the canonical Gospels that show evidence of creative writing, starting with the birth of Jesus. If Christians invented stories about Jesus’ birth and childhood, as in the Proto-gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it should not be a surprise to find some in the Gospels. Consider Matthew’s version. A magical star appears in the sky, causing some foreign unnamed astrologers to seek the newborn king of the Jews, as if pagan foreigners would care about the happenings in a small subject nation like Israel. If the star could lead them right to the very house where Jesus lived (Matthew 2:9) then why did they have to stop in Jerusalem to ask directions? Why would God save His own son from Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents but leave the other families to mourn their murdered children? Not very considerate of Him who is said to be the epitome of love. And at each step Matthew cites Old Testament passages as prophecy, but when you read the passages in context they have nothing to do with a future Messiah (see the previous two posts); he seems to use these passages as pretexts for the various elements of his story. The whole story reads very much like those in the non-canonical gospels: interesting but hard to accept as factual. Luke’s version is not much more convincing, as he also has John the Baptizer born miraculously as a relative of Jesus, who recognizes Jesus even in utero yet somehow forgets who he is later in life (Luke 1:41, 7:19).[3] The idea that a census would require people to return to their ancestral home makes no sense; you want to register them where they live and work, for taxation purposes. And consider the chaos across the Roman Empire if everyone had to figure out where their true ancestral home was and go there?! Luke also presents Jesus in the temple in Jerusalem where his birth is no secret (e.g., Luke 2:38), right under the nose of Herod who is supposedly out to kill him according to Matthew. At least Luke doesn’t accuse God of abandoning the children of Bethlehem to Herod’s slaughter like Matthew and James do.
We have some clues from the Gospels themselves that those authors recognized that not all the stories in circulation about Jesus were correct. Let me note that although I use the traditional names of these Gospels there is no evidence that they were written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, John or James or that the authors were direct eyewitnesses reporting accurately what they themselves saw. The Gospel of “Luke” is most explicit on this point:
Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4
So it sounds like Luke is making the effort to keep his account accurate (as opposed to the other versions?), but he admits he has to use other sources to compose his account. This leads to an interesting situation: Luke clearly uses the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources: he quotes it verbatim in various places. Yet in other places he changes Mark’s wording or the order of events. Why did he sometimes change the material from Mark? It seems obvious that he did not think Mark always got the story right, and Luke had to correct him.
Likewise Matthew uses Mark, but like Luke sometimes changes (corrects?) the material from Mark. Also, Luke and Matthew share material not found in Mark; many scholars think they had a common source for this material, called “Q” from the German word for “source”. There are competing theories about this (perhaps Luke used Matthew or vice versa?), but yet again, Luke’s version is often somewhat different from Matthew’s. Clearly they disagreed with each other as to the proper way to record this material; otherwise we would expect the same wording. For example compare the way they report the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:8-15, Luke 11:2-4) or the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11, Luke 6:20-22). So, we have Gospel authors who appear to disagree with one another about how to present the ministry of Jesus. If the Holy Spirit was guiding this process He clearly had a very loose approach, not consistent with the strictness of modern fundamentalism.
Speaking of fundamentalism, the claim that the Gospels are infallible and entirely accurate came from later Christians; much later. It really has only been in the past two centuries that this idea has become so important to some Christians (not all). The early story tellers did not seem to have any qualms about creating stories to express what they believed about Jesus and His apostles. Most Christians acknowledge this with the non-canonical stories mentioned above. I think the Gospels also are better understood and appreciated that way. “Gospel” means “good news,” not “biography” or “history.” Why let concerns about reality get in the way of a good story meant to influence people?
What do these invented stories tell us? That religious zealots, rather than being devoted to the historical truth, are actually devoted to an ideal which justifies creating stories in support of that ideal. Israel is a nation chosen by and blessed by Yahweh – so the stories reflect and support that. Jesus was a miracle-working Son of God, superior to the human-like pagan gods – so the stories express that. He even endowed His disciples with such power, so the stories reflect that, too. Pagans needed to be convinced of Jesus’ power so Christians told entertaining stories of Him and his disciples performing astounding acts. If the stories reflect spiritual truth, what does it matter if they are literally true or not, right? I am reminded of this quote by well-known scholar John Dominic Crossan: “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”
You are free to believe that the Christmas stories contained in Matthew and Luke (and James) are literal and accurate representations of true events. Others may see them as charming stories with lessons to tell, but not to be taken literally. As I said in the previous post, I still like the story, despite my skepticism. Almighty God becomes incarnate not in a palace belonging to royalty but in a humble family, being born in a stable, or a cave. The religious and political authorities oppose and persecute Him to protect their power and position, even willing to kill to do so. We are told (by Mary): “He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty-handed.” (Luke 1:51-53) The angels announce, ““Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among people of goodwill!” (Luke 2:14) Simeon in the temple tells us that this Child is not for the elite, but rather “A light for revelation for the Gentiles [all nations], and the glory of Your people Israel.” (Luke 2:32)
There are those who proclaim that there is a “War On Christmas!” Indeed. But I think the war is being waged by those who claim to worship the poor persecuted non-white baby lying in a manger while actually worshipping and promoting wealth and power at the expense of the poor and downtrodden, the very people being lifted up by the Christmas story.
Ultimately you have to decide for yourself what to make off this timeless revered story. What does it mean to you?
Thinking exercises:
1. Jesus taught in parables. Do you think some of the stories of the Bible were intended as parables (illustrations) but later were taken as factual history?
2. Why do people believe fantastic stories that originate in their own religion while dismissing those outside of their sacred writings or in other religions? What criteria do you use in deciding which stories to believe?
3. Write down what the Christmas story means to you. Is this reflected in your life, religion and politics?
[1] She is like a Vestal Virgin in the Temple, but of course there were no such women serving in the Jewish Temple, so perhaps this reflects a later Roman influence in the story.
[2] Menstruation would make her ritually “unclean” according to Jewish tradition.
[3] Some scholars believe the birth narrative in Luke is a later addition, which is why Mary and Joseph (e.g. Luke 2:50) and John (Luke 7:19) seem not to know how special Jesus is, despite his miraculous start in those first two chapters. The narrative of Jesus’ story may have originally started with Luke 3:1,