The Bible Undressed

            I enjoy the Christmas season. I like the Christmas story, even though if you read my posts about it (25-29, 67, 68) you know I am skeptical that the birth of Jesus took place as told in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. I have an acquaintance who is a noted New Testament scholar who told me one of his mentors was a renowned Catholic scholar, and even though Catholics are noted for their veneration of the Virgin Mary, a key part of the two birth stories, this scholar acknowledged that Jesus was likely born in Nazareth and the two birth stories in Matthew and Luke were probably created for theological reasons.

            Still, there are reasons to like the story, even if you don’t take it literally. God Almighty chooses to incarnate Himself as a human baby, to share our humanity and learn first-hand what it means to be human. He is not born in a palace, but in a humble house, with only a manger, an animal feeding trough, to serve as a crib. His mother, according to the custom of that day, was probably a teenager, perhaps a young teenager (recall that Shakespeare’s Juliet was not yet 14!). His father is an obscure craftsman, and like most workers of his day quite literally working for their ‘daily bread.’ Humble shepherds, not the rich and powerful, are invited to see the newborn child. Mysterious men from the East travel far to visit this special child, even though they are not Jews themselves. Jesus’ parents take him to the Temple in Jerusalem where two faithful workers (Simeon and Anna) are given a chance to see the child before they die, saying, “For mine eyes have seen thy salvation!” How sweet! Jesus grows up in obscurity in a small town (it’s been excavated, and it had no public buildings or even a synagogue), not in a mansion in a major city with wealthy or influential parents. Yet he goes on to become a great preacher and teacher, and, according to Christian theology, he sacrifices himself for the sins of humanity. One can see why the story is so beloved, and makes for a great pageant for the kids in church to perform.

Simeon’s Song of Praise by Arent de Gelder

            So, that’s the ‘good’ part; what about the ‘bad?’ Well, some of this is more just puzzling or inconsistent – more ‘wrong’ than ‘bad’ perhaps. Take Luke’s version of the story. He claims that Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the empire: “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” (Luke 2:1,2)  Each was to go to “his own city.” This is why Joseph takes Mary to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David (Bethlehem being the ‘City of David’). Now, this presents a number of problems. First, there is no record of an empire-wide census around this time (a census is one of those events for which there should definitely be records!) Second, Quirinius did not become governor until 10 years after the death of Herod the Great, so that doesn’t fit. Third, the idea of a census is mainly for taxation and to identify men of military age. You don’t want people running around to their ancestral home; you want them counted where they live and work. Also, imagine the chaos if everyone in the empire had to return to their ancestral home. And how far back do you go? Two or three generations? In Joseph’s case he’s going back a thousand years to the time of David! Imagine here in the U.S. if we had a census and everyone had to return to their family home just 3 generations back. What chaos there would be! Why would any government ever conceive of such a thing?! The simple answer is: it would not. Luke seems to have invented this census as a mechanism to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, even though everyone knew he was from Nazareth.

            This also raises another problem: in Matthew the family seems to live in a house in Bethlehem. The only reason Jesus grows up in Nazareth is because Herod sends troops to kill him (see post #67) and the family first flees to Egypt. After Herod dies their intention is to return to their home in Bethlehem, but because of Herod’s son they instead move to Nazareth in Galilee. Luke, on the other hand, has the family living in Nazareth, and the only reason they go to Bethlehem, on a temporary basis, is because of the census. After Jesus’ birth they take him to the temple in Jerusalem, right under Herod’s nose, who supposedly wants to kill him! People are talking about this remarkable child! Yet no response from Herod. And then they peacefully return home to Nazareth. I know people try, but it is hard to reconcile these two conflicting accounts of Jesus’ birth.

            I refer you back to posts #25 and 26 if you want to explore more details of the difficulties found in the two competing birth stories of Jesus. Matthew’s poor use of Old Testament passages as purported ‘prophecies’ of Jesus is particularly worth noting.

            Now for the ‘ugly.’ See my recent post #67 about the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents.’ The God of Love warns Joseph to flee from Herod’s soldiers, thus saving His own son, while leaving the other boy toddlers to be massacred? Does that sound right to you? All-knowing God couldn’t figure out a way of saving the other children, too?

Annunciation by Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1472–1476.

            Another ‘ugly’ aspect of the story is that it represents perhaps the worst case of sexual harassment in the history of the world! Read Luke 1 carefully. The angel Gabriel was sent by God to tell Mary that she was going to have ‘the Son of the Most High’ (known as The Annunciation). He does not ask her permission, He does not even ask how she feels about it. He just tells her it is going to happen. Now, here is a powerless teenage girl and the God of the Universe, who is on record as destroying those who defy Him, tells her she is going to bear the ‘Son of God.’ What do you expect her to say?! How does a girl like this say ‘no’ to God Almighty? This is the textbook definition of sexual harassment: using one’s position of power to elicit compliance. Plus, she was already engaged to a man named Joseph; what about his part in this? In Matthew 1 he, like Mary, is told what is happening, but there is no request for consent. Now, some will counter, “But Mary welcomes this: read her psalm of praise! (known as The Magnificat, in Luke 1).” Yes, and note that Mary refers to herself as God’s “bondslave” in this situation. She understands her position before All-powerful God. This actually sounds like a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome, in which a victim of abuse develops positive feelings, empathy, or even loyalty towards her abuser as a survival mechanism. Sexual abuse can be psychologically devastating, so rationalizing that the abuser loves you and is doing something good for you is one way of keeping your psyche intact. So, was God guilty of sexual abuse, and Mary a victim of Stockholm Syndrome? You don’t hear that preached in church too often, do you?

Christmas pageant at a local church.
At least my granddaughter got to be an angel instead of an animal!

            If you are content to watch the children perform the traditional Christmas pageant at your church, followed by hot chocolate and cookies, then I certainly will not begrudge you; I’d even join you! As I said, I like the traditional story. It is when one looks closer at the details that problems arise. I personally want to know those details and deal with them in my mind. I want a realistic understanding of these stories. But that does not mean I cannot enjoy the essence of the season: “Peace on earth and good will toward men!” Women and children, too, of course!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!