We're close to hitting Advent, and what has actually become the de facto Christmas - the Season of Christmas now lasts a couple of days while Advent is now the new Christmas.Before too long the usual run of Nativity plays will soon be warmed to perfection, as parents and grandparents alike will be oohing and aahing their way through innumerable Crimbo dramas.
But what are they actually watching? Is it history? Are they the eyewitness accounts that most people believe they are?
The answer is no.
What we normally watch on school stages up and down the land are a melded version of the Nativity myth. People assume that what they are seeing is what happened. I don't think it is, but does that make it any less 'true'?
First things first. We need to remember that the layout of the New Testament in the Bible is not its correct chronological order. Yes, it's true that Jesus preceded Paul and his letters, but that's not the order the NT was written in:
Paul's letters 50-62CE
Mark 65CE
Matthew/Luke 75CE
John 80-90CE
These are approximate dates but rather conservative ones too.
So what do we learn about the miraculous birth of Jesus from Paul (the earliest NT writer)? The answer is nothing! The only thing that Paul says about Jesus' birth was that he was "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4). Note he doesn't say 'born of a virgin', but 'born of a woman' - a bit like you and me, and every human that ever lived.
The earliest Gospel writer, Mark, doesn't have a birth narrative.
Matthew and Luke both have birth narratives but they're not the same. Matthew has Magi - Luke doesn't. Luke has angels and Shepherds - Matthew doesn't. Jesus' birth is announced to Joseph in a dream in Matthew - Jesus' birth is announced to Mary by an angel in Luke. Post birth, the family flees to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents by Herod in Matthew, only coming back when he dies - they head to Nazareth to live in Luke, only stopping in Jerusalem for a dedication at the Temple (no mention is made in Luke of the murder of the male infants).
John doesn't have a birth narrative either.
Now what does this mean? At face value you have a 'no-yes-yes-no' pattern. So what! Two people mention it, and two don't.
But you need to remember the order they were written. That's the important part. You need to look at the Gospel writers and when they proclaim Jesus as God's Son:
Mark (65CE) Jesus proclaimed Divine at his baptism
Matthew/Luke (75CE) Jesus proclaimed divine at his birth
John (80-90CE) Jesus proclaimed divine before his birth.
Paul has nothing about Jesus' life. As the interpretation of Jesus continues through time, his divinity is pushed further and further back until you get to John who states a pre-existent Christ.
And that's why the Nativity plays we all watch are not history - they are INTERPRETATION. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Mythology is NOT history. But because it's not history doesn't make it less true.
And so I enjoy the story of Jesus' birth, but I don't believe it. And so I enjoy it even more.
