Before diving into the topic of this essay, there are a few thought points to share.
Having a Foundation for What you Believe
I was in a business meeting in Ottawa, Ontario, when the planes hit the Twin Towers. Each day, my coworker and I would go to the airport, having been told we “might” be leaving that day. And then we would return to the hotel. On one of the trips, I bought the book “The History of God.” This book bothered my mother immensely. I needed, in her words, “to get that evil out of your house.” Eventually, for her sake, I gave it to Goodwill.
But I profoundly disagree with her underlying premise. Mom chooses to keep out of her mind things that would challenge her traditions and beliefs. Why let evil into your mind? I would suggest that unless you challenge what you “believe,” and do so profoundly, you cannot do anything more than know what you think you believe. You can’t actually believe it.
I’ve read The History of God, and I believe profoundly in the existence of God.
God v. Man
In Genesis 5 the Bible states that God created man in His image, male and female. From that point forward, mankind has endlessly sought to mold God into images convenient for them. There are billions of versions of God, across all religions (although muslims would argue, and perhaps rightly so, that Christians are particularly adept at this). These versions land in oral traditions, family traditions, church traditions. The easy out is to just connect to one of these, but is that authentic?
So much of what we “believe” today is impacted by items worthy of questioning. What role did culture play in the creation of a belief? What traditions are based on anything beyond, “That’s the way it's always been?” What role did language translation have in what we view as “gospel truth”? When Dan Brown suggested in the Davinci Code that Jesus and Mary Magedela had a child, many Christians shouted, “Don’t read that heretical book!” Yet a foremost theologian in the understanding of culture and language of Jesus’ time noted that Jesus could have both had an intimate relationship with Mary AND met the Christion requirement of being sinless. A previously married woman and a single adult man having consensual relations was not thought of as anything outside of normal and acceptable in the culture of the day. I suspect that thought challenges you because it is outside of your cultural view of right and wrong, of sinful or sinlessness.
Coupled with this is the challenge of oral tradition and scribing, and how that formed scripture. We don’t know precisely when some scripture was written. There is lots of reason, however, to suspect that the gospels were written some time after Jesus' life. This opens the opportunity for recollections to morph. Or facts to be misapplied. When I tell you that we had a guest from Boston at our East Texas Thanksgiving meal, your likely first thought is that that individual traveled a long way. But the drive from Boston, Texas, to Jefferson, Texas, is less than an hour. But the story is much better with the big Boston as the star. And so, Boston, MA, it can become as people pass it along. Even when these oral traditions are written, they aren’t done being changed.
In the book, Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrlman shows example after example of how scribes changed the actual words of what was in or included within scripture. There’s little consequence to the core message, but the point is made, what we accept as the core message may not be the original message because scribes copying one parchment to another, “clarified” things for us, making sure “original meaning” from their perspectives were clarified by their changes. Further, this is not a distant issue. Translations today keep changing as scholars determine the “original” meanings. Interestingly, these sometimes align to support what is believed to be the teaching of God or Jesus, beliefs held by those tasked with objective translation. Mankind morphing God.
My adult children recently shared a humorous moment. They were hanging out with their 20 something friends and the conversation turned to “what each conversant’s family believed.” My girls relayed they remained largely silent until asked what their family believed. They replied, “Let us check with dad and see what our current belief is!” I LOVE that. And here’s why.
The v. A
An editorial many decades ago in the Adventist Review, a publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (my family's religious heritage), highlighted the danger of the word “the” as a substitute for the word “a” in the phrase “we have a truth.”
We want to have THE truth. We’re wired that way. But saying we do is fraudulent. To believe in God, I would contest, requires one to embrace having A truth and knowing it might change. Jesus clearly stated that the Spirit would come as he left, an infiltration of everything. God with us now God within us, Prophecy is now universally gifted to young men and women, not an occasional seer. Spiritual gifts abundantly gifted to a full community. Truth is not contained to 66 books arbitrarily selected by a group of religious scholars or to the words morphed into those 31,102 verses, and only inclusive of those penned prior to the compilation. “A truth” demands more. It demands that we always ask, always explore. It demands that we examine what tradition has told us, even tradition captured in gospels and labeled as scripture. A truth recognizes that perhaps the truth simply doesn’t add up and accepts that the Spirit, God within us, might just show us that. New light. New cannon.
With that prelude, allow me to raise the question of why believing in Santa Claus may be easier than believing the Christmas Story.
I LOVE the movie Miracle on 34th Street … the new version in particular. Let’s cut to the chase, I Believe. Always have, Always will. Santa Claus is real.
Now there are a lot of things about St. Nick that have changed through the years. I was chatting with my friend Google recently and learned about a few:
Saint Nicholas was a monk born around 280 AD. He became legendary for giving away his wealth to those in need. The History Channel reports that while many saints fell out of favor during Protestantism, St. Nicolas retained his favor for all.
In the US, Santa Claus began his morphing when a group of New York families gathered to celebrate Sinter Klaas. One member of their community in the early 1800s created a wood carving of Sinter Klaas that had stockings filled with goodies hanging on a fireplace. St. Nick had a new fact added to his story.
In 1809 Santa received his red waistcoat courtesy of Irving Berlin.
This resurgence of Sinter Klaas was embraced by merchants as the idea of gift exchanging grew in popularity in the 1820s. Santa Claus was now appearing in newspaper ads, now dressed in red, of course.
In 1822 Saint Nick got “wheels” and became magical as eight reindeer pulled him in a sleigh from rooftop to rooftop and for the first time he magically came through chimneys into homes of little boys and girls. He became a portly elf at the same time. All of this courtesy of an Episcapal minister and a whimsical poem.
In 1841 Santa made his first store appearance. In the 1890s the Salvation Army sent him to many street corners. (Oddly, perhaps, the one thing about these Santa Claus’ that was profoundly accurate was the white beards. Saint Nicolas continued his benevolence late into life and his beard would likely have been white. AND, he would have had a beard. A significant theological debate was raging at the time between Eastern and Western Christianity over the theology of beard wearing. Being in the Eastern sect, he would have been fully bearded.)
In 1863 Saint Nicolas moved to the North Pole and got fat thanks to a Saturday Evening Post series of cartoon drawings. He also lost pigmentation.
Santa’s lead reindeer Rudolph arrived in 1939 courtesy of an ad man for Montgomery Ward’s. The Rudolph story was written to drive store traffic, was turned into a hit song and movie, and was cemented into history.
And, thanks to Miracle on 34th Street, we have permission to believe. If we as a nation can “trust and believe in God that we don’t see then we can believe in Santa Claus. Not Guilty”
But, I would argue, what we really believe in, is the benevolent monk who lived centuries ago near Myra in Turkey. When we give gifts to the ones we love and to those around us – as tainted by commercialism as they might be – we do so in the spirit of Saint Nicolaus, Santa Claus. A monk who took 1 John 3:16 and 17 and showed that he was filled by the love of God by what he did for those in need about him.
The story is real. Santa Claus is real. And it's not just something I want to believe in. It is something I want to feel radiating from every fiber of who I am.
The Christmas Story has a similar journey. It too has changed much, imagination captured onto paper, images anchored by the artists’ paint. And, though perhaps fallible, labeled divinely infallible. As I relay it, please don’t start stoning this Stephen until I’m done.
Jesus' birth was clearly a most significant moment in the history of our modern world … whether you’re Muslim, Morman, Christian, or those at odds with these groups. Jesus' teachings are profound. His birth, something to celebrate. But how it unfolded and how the myths of its circumstances have grown leave us with much to question.
First, though, some key considerations are:
The Christmas Story is not in the Q source … which is not surprising as this hypothetical document appears to be a collection of sayings and quotations.
It is slotted in between the writing of Peter and John’s gospels and after Paul’s letters.
Paul writes from AD 48 to 64
James the Just brother of Jesus is martyred in AD 62
The Gospel of Mark from AD 66–70,
Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90
John AD 90–110.
These data points are interesting for a few reasons. First, Paul is the follower of Christ who introduces Jesus as being born of a virgin and part God. Perhaps Paul received that from Jesus in a vision or concluded it from his study. James the Just, brother of Jesus, along with Peter and John, initially, may not have bought into that theory. We know so little. But we see those three in the role of creating a Christian sect within Judaism as Paul is out creating a Gentile church. These puzzle pieces become interesting when you note that Peter (gospel of Mark) and John opt to not include the Christmas Story in their gospels. You could argue that John viewed it as “already covered” but Mark was written first so clearly there was a choice to not include it. Perhaps there was disagreement with its accuracy or even its relevance.
Second, interesting objectives are in play with those that do cover the birth. Luke states as the purpose to create an accurate account from among the many eyewitnesses. In so doing, Luke gives more attention to John the Baptist than to Mary and Jesus. But it is from Luke that we get some of the interesting Christmas Story components:
Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem to be registered as it was the city of his heritage.
The baby being placed in swaddling cloths and laid in a manger
That there was no room in the inn.
The visit to the shepherds by the angel
The testimonies of Anna and Simeon
Matthew’s agenda is to convince those of the Jewish faith that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies and was indeed the promised Messiah. In the Christmas Story he makes multiple references to support this as he needs to give proof-point credibility to the highly contentious Pauline assertion that Jesus is the literal son of God and part of the deity. Through the centuries, Christianity has come to not question these, but in fairness, not all of these feel quite so connected:
That the savior will come from Bethlehem in the land of Judah. There doesn’t feel like a strong connection to this limited context quote as one keeps reading the entire Micah 2 chapter. But, the Messiah the “chief priest and teachers of the law” were looking for, apparently fit this text enough that Matthew felt the readers would accept the connection being made. The babe in the manger, however, might not have matched the text.
That the Messiah Jesus was from the house of David.
That Joseph took Jesus to Egypt. Luke apparently didn’t agree during his research. Again, the connection to a prophecy in Hosea seems a bit of a stretch for creating a proof point.
Joseph moving to Nazareth after Egypt rather than originating in Nazareth as told in Luke. This one is actually quite interesting as outlined later.
The genocide of the male infants in Bethlehem. The connection to this passage, whether the event happened or not, takes some creative license.
With that background, we can begin to see the Christmas Story begin its journey.
Joseph and Mary must put Jesus in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. Scholar Stephen Carlson has recently asserted that the best translation for the Greek word that for centuries has been Inn, is best aligned to “a place to stay.” If Joseph is returning to his hometown, as Luke tells the story, the most likely destination point is a relative’s house. If there was no place to stay in the house they would possibly be in an adjacent guest area, Carlson suggests. And that a manger would be a good option for a crib makes sense as animals likely would be located just outside and a manger at the ready.
But, the ostracized inn keeper and a barn with animals that we now embrace, these make for much better symbols of the humble birth. At least Saint Francis of Assisi thought so.
In 1223, Saint Francis of Assisi wanted to bring a more vivid reality to the birth of Jesus for his parishioners so he created the first manger scene, adding a cow and donkey. But, as Pope Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives states there’s no evidence in scripture that any animals were there. However, after Saint Francis put his scene together, artistic renderings cemented into our minds collections of animals … the lowing cattle, sheep, a bird or two, camels of the wise men, and the donkey of transport … all speculation. If sheep were there, my question is “were they in timeout?” Otherwise, would they not be in the field with the shepherds? In our personal manger scene, we for years included a lobster. You’ll either understand why or not. But let’s set that aside and speak to the most likely animal to be nearby, the donkey.
The donkey, of course, is largely presumed to be how Mary made the long, pregnant journey to the cave or stable in the first place. But was there a long journey? Maybe?
Remember the Boston reference earlier? You likely presumed Boston, Massachusetts, a LONG ways away. Oral traditions are vulnerable to these changes on their way to being written and recorded and none of Luke’s “eye witnesses” were there for the Christmas Story. Do you even conjure up a slight “Hmm” when you learn that there was a second small Bethlehem in Galilee less than five miles from Nazareth where Joseph worked as a carpenter. Archeologists have found the antiquities in Bethlehem of Galilee to be more in line with the time period of Jesus' birth than those of Bethlehem in Judea. Bethlehem in Aramaic times, based on one source I’ve read, simply described a unique form of a grain grinding mill. Could we have a lot of our story wrong based on a wrong presumption that provides a better narrative? Or matches better to the dots Matthew wanted to connect?
“How would a woman who is nine months pregnant travel 175 kilometers on a donkey all the way to Bethlehem of Judea?” asks Aviram Oshri, an archaeologist who has studied both Bethlehems and determined based on the antiquities the Galilee one to be the likely birth site. “It makes much more sense that she would have traveled seven kilometers” (the 4.3 mile distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee).
Recently in my home church many giggled as the teenage actor in role cluelessly surmised that the first people to see Jesus were his grandparents. Turns out she might have been profoundly right.
There are other aspects of our Christmas Story creations that we know are not likely to be accurate but that we adopt into our homes and hearts, our Christmas Stories nonetheless:
Three wise men on three camels. Most would presume that there were many more. Three works well when trying to recruit a church Christmas pageant cast.
A Christmas star over the barnyard scene. The star that guided the wise men would have arrived much later.
That Jesus’ birthday is December 25. No one knows. Other dates that have been suggested throughout church history are March 21, April 15, and May 20. Some feel that the connection to December 25 was the result of a blending with a pagan holiday. The most plausible explanation is, however, that early Christians believed that Jesus’ conception and death dates were the same, March 25. Add nine months to that and you get December 25.
The Christmas Story puzzle pieces in the Bible are actually quite thin, even thinner than those we know about the America version of Santa Claus … which may be the reason Mark and John simply left it out and focused on what matters most:
That Jesus was born.
That His teachings change everything.
That His resurrection provides life.
But, like with Santa, much appears to have morphed across time. Unlike with Santa, we’re not allowed to challenge or even acknowledge many of these potential morphings because, well, we want THE truth, not A truth, right? Asking questions “just opens the door to other questions too,” we’re told.
And that is why believing in Santa Claus may be easier than believing the Christmas Story. We know what we believe about Santa. And at beckon’s call we can shed the morphing and land on a Santa 1.0 that is profoundly real and good. So too is Jesus, whom I also believe in 100 percent. But I must confess, while I’m not so bothered by Saint Nicolas’ good deeds evolving into a whimsical, plumpy elf, I’m troubled by the similar morphing of the story of Jesus’ birth. Don’t get me wrong, like everyone else, I love the romantic scene and heart-warming tradition of lowing cattle, the cry free babe, the myriad of animals and peoples gathered to worship, the star above a straw filled barn. It makes for a great story. But I can’t fully believe, because I can’t get past the gnawing feeling that if we’re making much of that up, what else have the “ad men” changed too?
Now you can grab the stones. Give me a five minute head start please!