Telling our story
20/12/15 05:08
The Gospel of Luke is the key source of the stories of the nativity that we tell at this time of the year. We get the story of the visit of the wise men from the east from Matthew and we often quote the poetic, though somewhat esoteric prologue to the gospel of John for its imagery of light and darkness, but the storytelling is mostly based on Luke. Mark’s Gospel, of course, does not have any information about the birth of Jesus.
Around the stark simplicity of the account in Luke, there are a lot of traditions that have grown up. I’ve seen the character lists for lots of Christmas pageants that have characters that never make an appearance in the actual Biblical stories. One such character is the inn keeper. There is no such person in the Bible. The second chapter of Luke begins with a single paragraph about the birth:
“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirin′i-us was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”
It is unlikely that Joseph and Mary ever appeared at any kind of a public accommodation or that there was an inn keeper in the story. Mary and Joseph would have stayed with relatives in Bethlehem and the relatives likely had a two-room home that was also accommodating other guests. The “inn” was simply the upper room. Most homes were built on a hillside and the lower room was a place where animals were sheltered overnight. Cooking and living took place in the lower room, while the upper room, or inn, was mostly for sleeping. Mary’s baby, it would have been understood by early hearers of the story, was born in the common room.
As to the presence of donkeys, sheep and cows, it is unlikely. Cows were very expensive and few people had them. The donkey is assumed, but never mentioned in the Bible in regards to the journey of Mary and Joseph. Most people got around by walking in those days and it is likely that the pair didn’t have an animal to ride. And the sheep? The next paragraph tells us that they were out in the fields in the care of the shepherds, not in the homes that particular night.
Studying the Gospel of Luke for precise details about the birth of Jesus can be frustrating because there are so few details. And the details that do appear don’t always line up. The timing of Jesus birth, according to Luke 2 was “when Quirin’i-us was governor of Syria.” That would make the date the year 6 of the Common Era. Publics Sulpicius Quirinius was the governor of Syria and Judaea after the imposition of direct Roman rule. Prior to that time, King Herod, who died in 4 BC, was a brutal and very unpopular ruler. Herod the Great was a client king who served Roman interests, but was an intermediary between the Roman authorities and the people who lived in the region.
All of that makes the exact timing of Jesus birth a bit murky, since there is about a ten year gap between the death of Herod and the rule of Quirinius. If you read the Gospel of Luke for historical accuracy, there is a discrepancy between the timing of Elizabeth and Mary’s pregnancies, though the gospel clearly indicates that they occurred at the same time.
The Gospel writers were far less interested in historical accuracy than they were in theological concepts. What is important for the Gospel of Luke, as well as that of Matthew, is that Jesus is born in Bethlehem. This fulfills the prophecy in the Book of Micah that the messiah would come from that place. Since Luke and Matthew are absolutely convinced that Jesus is the messiah, this bit of theological information is far more important than the exact year of the birth. Who is more important then when for those writers. The detail about the enrollment is placed to explain why the couple were in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth at the time of Jesus’ birth.
We don’t bother with the historical analysis when we tell the story in our generation. We aren’t thrown by what might be called inaccuracies of character and time. We try to get the main points right when we teach the story to our children. It is, however, more than just a nice story to those of use who believe. It is, for us, a piece of our history - the story that we share with many generations - that reveals the nature of God and the depth of God’s commitment to humans. Innkeeper or no inkeeper, sheep or no sheep - these are not the main points to us. 6 BCE or 4 CE or somewhere in-between, the exact date is not the critical part of the story.
What we have in Luke is the story that our people have been telling for hundreds of generations. It has survived translation from Greek to Latin to modern languages and still conveys a sense of identity to us. It has been told accurately and inaccurately and still treasured as our story. It links us with those who have gone before and we tell the story to our children in the belief that it will be told long after our time on this earth has reached its conclusion.
So our children will present that story to us once again this morning. Their costumes won’t be historically accurate. They will only partially understand the story that they tell. Their songs will be sung with enthusiasm, but perhaps without the highest refinement of repeated practice. And it will be more than good enough. It will be just right.
After all, we’re counting on them to tell the story for years to come.
Around the stark simplicity of the account in Luke, there are a lot of traditions that have grown up. I’ve seen the character lists for lots of Christmas pageants that have characters that never make an appearance in the actual Biblical stories. One such character is the inn keeper. There is no such person in the Bible. The second chapter of Luke begins with a single paragraph about the birth:
“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirin′i-us was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”
It is unlikely that Joseph and Mary ever appeared at any kind of a public accommodation or that there was an inn keeper in the story. Mary and Joseph would have stayed with relatives in Bethlehem and the relatives likely had a two-room home that was also accommodating other guests. The “inn” was simply the upper room. Most homes were built on a hillside and the lower room was a place where animals were sheltered overnight. Cooking and living took place in the lower room, while the upper room, or inn, was mostly for sleeping. Mary’s baby, it would have been understood by early hearers of the story, was born in the common room.
As to the presence of donkeys, sheep and cows, it is unlikely. Cows were very expensive and few people had them. The donkey is assumed, but never mentioned in the Bible in regards to the journey of Mary and Joseph. Most people got around by walking in those days and it is likely that the pair didn’t have an animal to ride. And the sheep? The next paragraph tells us that they were out in the fields in the care of the shepherds, not in the homes that particular night.
Studying the Gospel of Luke for precise details about the birth of Jesus can be frustrating because there are so few details. And the details that do appear don’t always line up. The timing of Jesus birth, according to Luke 2 was “when Quirin’i-us was governor of Syria.” That would make the date the year 6 of the Common Era. Publics Sulpicius Quirinius was the governor of Syria and Judaea after the imposition of direct Roman rule. Prior to that time, King Herod, who died in 4 BC, was a brutal and very unpopular ruler. Herod the Great was a client king who served Roman interests, but was an intermediary between the Roman authorities and the people who lived in the region.
All of that makes the exact timing of Jesus birth a bit murky, since there is about a ten year gap between the death of Herod and the rule of Quirinius. If you read the Gospel of Luke for historical accuracy, there is a discrepancy between the timing of Elizabeth and Mary’s pregnancies, though the gospel clearly indicates that they occurred at the same time.
The Gospel writers were far less interested in historical accuracy than they were in theological concepts. What is important for the Gospel of Luke, as well as that of Matthew, is that Jesus is born in Bethlehem. This fulfills the prophecy in the Book of Micah that the messiah would come from that place. Since Luke and Matthew are absolutely convinced that Jesus is the messiah, this bit of theological information is far more important than the exact year of the birth. Who is more important then when for those writers. The detail about the enrollment is placed to explain why the couple were in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth at the time of Jesus’ birth.
We don’t bother with the historical analysis when we tell the story in our generation. We aren’t thrown by what might be called inaccuracies of character and time. We try to get the main points right when we teach the story to our children. It is, however, more than just a nice story to those of use who believe. It is, for us, a piece of our history - the story that we share with many generations - that reveals the nature of God and the depth of God’s commitment to humans. Innkeeper or no inkeeper, sheep or no sheep - these are not the main points to us. 6 BCE or 4 CE or somewhere in-between, the exact date is not the critical part of the story.
What we have in Luke is the story that our people have been telling for hundreds of generations. It has survived translation from Greek to Latin to modern languages and still conveys a sense of identity to us. It has been told accurately and inaccurately and still treasured as our story. It links us with those who have gone before and we tell the story to our children in the belief that it will be told long after our time on this earth has reached its conclusion.
So our children will present that story to us once again this morning. Their costumes won’t be historically accurate. They will only partially understand the story that they tell. Their songs will be sung with enthusiasm, but perhaps without the highest refinement of repeated practice. And it will be more than good enough. It will be just right.
After all, we’re counting on them to tell the story for years to come.