What would Christmas be like without the Nativity stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke? Jesus' birth is rich with imagery. For example, countless works of art through the centuries show angels announcing the virgin birth to Joseph and Mary. And Christians around the world imagine the young and pregnant Mary journeying some 80 miles to Bethlehem on the back of a donkey. The couple then searched for a warm, cozy room at an inn, but they were left to bring forth the baby Jesus in a rustic and humble stable. On a hillside, a chorus of angels sang, announcing his birth to shepherds who traveled to get the first glimpse of the newborn babe. Later, "Wise men" brought precious gifts to Jesus.
Christians have always loved and celebrated these stories of Jesus' birth. Nevertheless, a question has lingered since the 17th century's Age of Enlightenment over the authenticity of these Nativity stories, a cloud of doubt that continues today.
Are these Nativity accounts factual or fictional? In their book The First Christmas, authors Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan address whether or not the veracity of these stories is really the central question. They pose another possibility—that these stories are parables or allegories intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally. So, if we view the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke as parables, filled with deeper meaning than just the specific details, then the real question is not whether the stories are fact or fiction, but rather, what is their significance to us—what do they actually mean? What if there is another Nativity story?
The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke were published some 70 to 80 years after Jesus' birth. Christianity was growing, yet skeptics and critics continued to scoff at Jesus as the Messiah. Rumors suggested that Jesus was simply illegitimate, born out of wedlock. So it's plausible that the authors of Matthew and Luke set out to correct these gross accusations with the inclusion of Jesus' birth stories.
Typically Christians integrate the accounts of the Nativity in Matthew and Luke into one story because they have these elements in common:
• Joseph became engaged to Mary
• Mary, a virgin, conceived a child from the Holy Spirit
• Angels announced the birth to Mary and then to Joseph
• Jesus' birth took place in Bethlehem
• Jesus was the prophesied Messiah, and his mission was to save
• Genealogy linked Jesus through Joseph to David
• Jesus' birth occurred during the reign of Herod the Great
• Jesus' home was in Nazareth
• Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of prophecy
Some scholars argue that the stories are too different to be combined. They were written for different first-century audiences. Matthew addressed Jews, who knew scriptural prophecy and expected a royal and majestic Messiah from the house of David. On the other hand, Luke spoke to the Greek Christian converts, who could appreciate a Messiah of lowly and humble origin.
The account in Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, and eventually made their home in Nazareth. Luke places them as citizens of Nazareth who went to Bethlehem to be counted in a census and then returned to Nazareth.
Matthew tells us of wise men who followed a brilliant star to Jerusalem. They asked King Herod where they might find the newborn king of the Jews. This question incensed Herod, because he thought of himself as the king of the Jews. Herod instructed the wise men to continue following the guiding star, but then they should return to him to tell him where the child could be found.
Is it possible that the Gospel of John gives another view of Jesus' Nativity—the truest view?
The notion that there were three men—often depicted as three kings traveling from as far east as Persia, Arabia, or Yemen—comes from the mention in the story of three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Some researchers suggest that a particularly large contingency, possibly dozens of wise men (noted scholars, perhaps), traveling with their entourage of servants and guards, followed the star to Bethlehem. Later, when the wise men didn't return to tell Herod where to find Jesus, Herod ordered the slaughter of children two years and younger. This account in Matthew provides the Jewish audience with a potential link between Moses and Jesus, because at the time of Moses' birth, Pharaoh also had ordered the death of all Hebrew baby boys.
Luke's birth narrative, on the other hand, seems almost as if it could have been Mary's baby book. It has far more specifics than Matthew's account. Luke's Gospel includes details of how she journeyed from Nazareth to Bethlehem on a donkey (details that Mary may have shared with Luke himself or with someone who knew Luke). It seems entirely likely that a mother telling the story of the birth of her son would include in the narrative how difficult it had been to find a place to give birth. And certainly a young Jewish mother would probably have related how the events following the birth were in accord with Jewish custom. For example, according to the custom of the day, friends and family waited outside a household to hear if the mother delivered a boy or girl. If a girl, everyone went home quietly. If a boy, they'd start singing. Mary's son was not deprived of this custom. Luke speaks of lowly shepherds coming to visit the newborn babe and of angels providing a heavenly choir.
For most Christians (and even many non-Christians), it might be difficult to think of Christmas without Matthew's and Luke's accounts of Jesus' birth, however different they may be, because these two books are the only Gospels that record the birth of Jesus. But is there another account we might have overlooked? Is it possible that the Gospel of John gives another view of Jesus' Nativity—the truest view?
Matthew and Luke describe Jesus' human beginning. However, the Gospel of John doesn't include any narrative of Jesus' birth, but rather tells us: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). While the previous two accounts alert the early Christian church to the Davidic roots of the Messiah and that Jesus' arrival and life are anchored in prophecy, John gives us an account of creation, echoing the first words of the first chapter of Genesis, "In the beginning God created" (1:1). God created! Male and female are "born" of God, Spirit! Is John's Gospel telling us then that in reality neither Jesus nor any of us were born of the flesh, but rather entirely of Spirit? These verses from John certainly indicate this: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (1:12,13).
John also includes the story of Nicodemus, a Jewish leader, who secretly visited Jesus one night. When Nicodemus acknowledged that Jesus must have come from God because no man on earth could do the miracles that Jesus had done, Jesus expounded on the need for everyone to be born again. Jesus said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (3:5). In Greek the word again means "from above." Jesus concluded his remarks to Nicodemus with these words: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (3:13).
Is Jesus telling us that we need to see ourselves born from above and not accept an earthly existence or a Nativity story for ourselves? Matthew and Luke meet the world's need for a human story of birth and existence. Yet, the view John presents doesn't rob us of our treasured Christmas stories. we can continue to plumb the depths of those stories for fresh meaning. But John's account can expand our view to embrace our true nativity, just as Jesus did, being born of God, of Spirit, and not of the flesh—encouraging us even further to live in accord with our spiritual nature.
