The Birth(s) of a Savior

CHRISTMAS SPECIAL
2014

When you look at a Nativity Scene, you will see Joseph, Mary, and a baby Jesus in a stable accompanied by shepherds and kings, all of whom are typically white. You will also probably also see an angel or two over them, and over the entire scene a star. These Nativity Scenes are more for cuteness than historical accuracy. Christians have long noticed that the Nativity Scene awkwardly mixes two stories found in the Christian Bible: the birth account found in the Gospel of Matthew and the birth account found in the Gospel of Luke. Many Christians today "correct" the Nativity Scene by pointing out that the kings were not kings, but magi, and they came after Jesus's birth. Thus the typical "corrected" Christian view of the Nativity is as follows:

Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. She and Joseph were living in Nazareth, but due to an unusual census which required Joseph to return to his ancestral home, they traveled to Bethlehem. But because the inn was full, Mary and Joseph stayed in a stable. When Mary gave birth she placed her baby in a manger to rest. They were soon visited by shepherds, who were told by an angel that a savior was born in Bethlehem.
After eight days they had Jesus circumcised, and then, probably 32 days after that (or 40 days after birth), they sacrificed two birds on behalf of Jesus (their firstborn) at the Temple in Jerusalem as the law required. Then they returned to Bethlehem. Jesus's family stayed in Bethlehem for a while (many say two years), and then were visited by magi, who had seen in the stars that a "King of the Jews" was to be born. Prior to finding Jesus, however, the magi met with Herod the Great, who saw himself as King of the Jews. Craftily, he asked the magi to report the whereabouts of this new King of the Jews so that he could pay homage to him, but in reality wished to kill him. After the magi had visited Jesus, they were warned in a dream to not report back to Herod, so they took an alternative route home. Herod, furious at their actions, ordered that all the children two years and younger in Bethlehem were to be killed. Joseph, however, had also been warned in a dream of Herod's coming infanticide, and so he took Mary and Jesus to Egypt, escaping Herod's wrath. They stayed there until Herod died, at which point an angel told Joseph to return to Israel. So Joseph, Mary and Jesus packed up and attempted to return to Bethlehem. But, being warned in another dream that Herod's son was ruling over the region in which Bethlehem was located, they returned to Nazareth.

This is a pretty intense tale, filled with violence, miraculous messages from God, and a lot of traveling. For those who take the Bible completely literally, they must believe a story similar to this actually happened. This story, however, is doing the same thing the Nativity Scene does: it is smooshing together two very distinct stories of Jesus to make one narrative. Let's look at what the birth accounts of Matthew and Luke actually say, and more importantly, why they are saying it.

What I Do

I am a student of Comparative Religion. When I tell people that, they usually don't know what that means. Often times people think I am trying to become a pastor/priest/holy man/televangelist. I am attempting no such vocation. Others are at the other end of this spectrum, and believe I am practicing many religions at once, which they find offensive, usually because they are Christians who feel that liberals are trying to make every religion the same path to God. I am indeed not practicing the religions I study simultaneously, nor am under the mindset that every religion is really about the Christian god. So what DO I do? Simply put, I study religion for the sake of studying religion. In the realm of my studies, I do not practice any religion. This isn't to say I don't hold my own beliefs, or I don't attend church now and then. I do. But these things are independent of my studies. There are three methods that I use to study religion. These methods are: Comparative, Historical, and Anthropological.

Comparative

It is pretty much what you would think it is. I compare different religious traditions to understand similarities and differences between them. Similarities help me understand what "religion" as a category is, and differences help me understand the distinctness of religious traditions. But this is why I compare them: for understanding. My comparisons are NOT to show the superiority or truthfulness of a single tradition. I do not compare Christian myths with Muslim myths to show how "corrupted" one is in relation to the other. I do not privilege one religious tradition over another in my studies, even if I do in my everyday life. I do not intentionally compare traditions to attack one, although sometimes it may be perceived that way if I say something that happens to contradict a particular religion's doctrine, which does happen at times.

Historical

When most think about what "historical" means, they think it means something that actually happened. But history as an academic method does not mean this necessarily. Historians try to understand what actually happened through tangible evidence. But history changes as soon as new evidence is introduced. It is worth noting that this leaves little room for the supernatural, such as miracles. For instance, when scholars study the historical Jesus, they fail to mention that he rose from the dead. Why? Because there is not a single piece of convincing evidence to suggest this happened. Does that mean it didn't happen? Not at all. Maybe it did, but who knows? No one today has experienced or witnessed anything like a man being crucified and then coming back to life in three days. So there is no evidence to suggest that such a thing is even possible scientifically. It's not just Christian doctrine that is treated with such skepticism. If we are to take Muslim doctrine at face value, we would take it as historical that Jesus was not actually crucified by Rome, but rather a look-alike was in his stead. Historians certainly do not take this view! Our earliest sources of Jesus of Nazareth, the epistles of Paul, are completely centered on interpreting Jesus's crucifixion. Critical history does not favor one tradition over another; it reconstructs the past based on tangible evidence and critical thinking rather than religious doctrine or revelation.

Anthropological

When I say this, I do not mean the methods found in an anthropology department of a university, although sometimes I rely on those, too. What I mean is anthropology as opposed to theology; that is, the study of man rather than the study of gods. This is very much tied to the previous paragraph. I do not study the impact gods have had on religion, but the impact humans have had on religion. As such, I am uninterested in defending divine inspiration, arguing for or against the existence of gods, or convincing others that my religion is right. These things only interest me as they relate to humans. So, I do not ask questions like: is the Protestant Bible inspired by God? I ask questions like: why do Christians believe the bible is inspired by God? Why does the Catholic Bible have more "inspired" books in it than the Protestant Bible? What do Christians mean by "divine inspiration"? Does it mean "inerrant," or does it simply mean that the doctrines within the texts were set apart by God from all others?

Unlike a pastor/priest/holy man/televangelist, I do not speak for or about God; I do not claim he did this or didn't do that, or that he likes this and not that. I rather describe what humans have claimed about God, what they believe he did/didn't do, and what they think he likes/dislikes. To me, people are much more interesting to study than gods.