A couple of days ago Ben Witherington posted on the Christmas story. In all sorts of ways it is a very good example of a typical evangelical “back to basics” approach to Christmas. Essentially the Christmas story needs stripping of all its later accretions, and then the meaning will be clearer. Lurking somewhere unstated in Witherington’s post, but more obvious in some of the other versions I have come across, is the idea that once Christmas is made more “biblical”, it will not only be more meaningful, but more believable too.
It seems to me that this approach has one great virtue, but some significant vices. I shall start with the virtue. There is a great deal to be said for preaching the text, and that means first of all being attentive to that text in all its cultural and literary specificity.
Witherington is both good and bad at this. He is good when he looks at who the magi are, or when he ponders whether Matthew envisages the star as a heavenly being, or when he explores the ambiguities of the magi “worshipping” Jesus. He is bad when he implies that Matthew’s “house” (οἰκία – Matt 2:11) helps disprove the translation “inn” for Luke’s καταλύμα which should probably be taken as “guest room”. He is bad when he conflates or harmonises the two stories, thusly:
The story very clearly tells us that they [i.e. the magi] do not arrive in Bethlehem until after Jesus was born, indeed possibly well after because we are told that Herod was concerned with infants up to two years of age, and we also have the story of the parents taking Jesus to the Temple on the eight day, the proper day for circumcision. In other words, they seem to have stayed in Bethlehem after the birth of the child for a while.
This is precisely not being attentive to the text, or properly considering the Matthean story, where, it seems the family do not stay in Bethlehem as visitors, but live there as residents. It also leads me into the argument of why you really can’t be “biblical” in the sense that some evangelicals try to as Witherington does here, for there is not one single biblical Christmas story to which later additions are made.
Historically speaking, the main problem with Matthew’s story is Luke’s story, and vice versa. They can be harmonised only by careful suppression of each’s specificity. In Matthew the holy family home is always in Bethlehem. In Luke, they travel directly home to Nazareth after the forty days of Mary’s purification are up. One could go on, but the problem of historical believability is not just an issue for modern sceptics rejecting God’s work – it’s a problem of two contradictory and different narratives.
This historical use of the text is one thing. Preaching is another, and here there are at least two ways of preaching the Christmas story. The first is the one that pays attention to the text, that doesn’t harmonise the accounts, or fit the shepherds and the magi together. In this version it’s appropriate (in Year C – when Luke is the gospel?) to be sceptical about an inn and explore the idea of a guest room. It’s appropriate (in year A – when we read Matthew?) to consider Herod’s bloodthirsty reputation and the irony of astrology guiding pagans to worship, while those who have the prophecies of Scripture use them only to kill. That is a perfectly appropriate and legitimate use of Scripture in preaching, and one where my head and heart unite. I guess on that people of many views can agree.
But we can also preach more broadly and still legitimately on the fuller narrations of the Christmas story. There is nothing wrong with the crib, stable or cave, animals, kings and all. After all, Matthew’s story seems to help fill in details throughout his gospel with the help of Scripture, and the ox and the ass are there in prophecy,
The ox knows its owner,
and the donkey its master’s crib; (Isaiah 1:3)
The kings likewise turn up in fulfilment of prophecy:
Kings shall see and stand up,
princes, and they shall prostrate themselves,
because of the LORD, who is faithful,
the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you (Isaiah 49:7)nations shall bring you their wealth,
with their kings led in procession. (Isaiah 60:11)
Later tradition is simply doing what Matthew and other early preachers and teachers of the good news did, drawing out the meaning by weaving narratives of prophecy fulfilled. In both these cases, the Christmas story is developed with the theme of the one born to be king over nations, and the first-born of all creation in whom, as second Adam, the animals acknowledge God’s vicegerent.
There are times for a whole story harmonised, reflected on and developed. There are times for a careful thorough biblical exposition of the text as it stands in its two very different narratives. But there is not one simple, recoverable gospel harmony that delivers us a pure and believable history that is other than a very limited bare bones possibility – this is even the case with such a fundamental fact as the birthplace of Jesus. How much more so with inns and shepherds, or magi and murderous monarchs.
Yes, preach each gospel carefully and attentively. Yes, revel in the whole wealth of traditional Christmas retellings of this much-carolled birth. But please, hold back from assuming that by opposing the former to the latter we will somehow be delivered into the realms of history.
{ 4 comments }
Is it possible to make acceptable theology out of contradiction? I.e. if both Matthew and Luke must be ‘true’, it is not a ‘historical’ truth in the sense people might mean it today.
I like the answer to my question at Ken Schenck’s blog <a href="http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2009/12/paul-mutiny-in-galatia-1.html"here. Basically just let the text say what it says and forget the harmonizations. Harmonization “shows a greater valuing of a certain idea about the text than a valuing of the text itself!”
I haven’t had anyone mention the True Meaning of Christmas yet this year. Some means of communicating TMoC seem bent on maiming young faith: do these mummers not know what the Bible ACTUALLY says? I wonder if there is a psychological need in some to find proof texts for Scrooge-ness.
This afternoon, we had our mad Christingle bash. It struck me how Christingle could be seen as a way of recasting the incarnation with different symbols to give us another ‘way in’.
Isn’t the Word of God dumb?
Great post, Doug, except for one tiny detail. You said, “In Matthew the holy family home is always in Bethlehem.” That’s imprecise. The family home is not mentioned before 2:1.
IMHO, any historian should admit it seems odd that Matthew gives a location only once Jesus is born. What one does with the preceding silence is an open question, but it is no less speculative to insert Bethlehem into chapter 1.
I’m really starting to hate the word “harmonize”, but my only further critique is on your use of “suppression” and “directly”. Strictly speaking, both are inaccurate. Just as Mt.1 does not locate the betrothed couple, Lk.2:39 is not terribly clear on the passing of time.
Harmonies are traditionally positivistic, and defensive besides. If we accept both testimonies, the ‘bare bones’ of a reconstruction would look an awful like a “harmony”. So, where’s the harm? Where’s the foul?
Like you, it seems, I agree that it’s not merely whether our analysis is good or bad, but it’s often the agenda behind it that matters so very much more.
Thanks again for the post.
Comments on this entry are closed.