Legend has it that kings who reigned in the precolonial kingdom of Burundi were born with seeds in their hands 1. This miraculous birth served to reassure people who needed a sign that this unique individual with a unique call to rule, had the approval of the gods. This aspect can scarcely be said to be peculiar; virtually all other kingdoms (whether great or small) throughout history in the rest of the world had their own versions of myths surrounding the birth of their future kings – some of which are similar to ours. Certainly, no one looking back now actually believes any of that to have been true, but we sort of understand their urge to have, through these rituals, a divine sanction.
I also understand the tendency to bundle the nativity story together with such legends especially as it seems to have the same characteristics: Jesus’ life and calling was, to say the least, also exceptional, and since Jesus himself claimed divine origin, then his (sympathetic) biographers could have followed the ancient custom of ‘spicing up’ the story of his birth to authenticate his claims. So, when you read of ‘wise’ men following a moving star until ‘it came to rest over the place where the child was’, or when you read of a child born of a virgin and angels coming down to praise God with the shepherds; you’re really expected to take that with a pinch of salt.
Science, Turkeys and Twin Babies#
Richard Dawkins once 2 said that he wasn’t not sure how he’d react if all of a sudden a ‘giant 900 foot’ tall Jesus were to reveal himself for him and everyone around to see. Even then, he says, he wouldn’t believe. In fact, he adds what you’d expect from someone who has no categories for ‘miracles’; namely that the most plausible explanation would be that he, and everyone else, were hallucinating. In other words, he’d prefer to believe that there’s some kind of mass delusion going on rather than trusting his eyes and those of others who have seen, as well as their collective capacity for observation – which, oddly enough, was up until this point something that science heavily relies on.
I came across what’s commonly known as the “Turkey Illusion” 3 which is about imagining yourself to be a very intelligent turkey and you’re lecturing your fellow turkeys on how, based on careful observations and data you’ve meticulously gathered for many months, the human who usually brings them food is a creature that has nothing but their best intentions at heart. In this case, the most intelligent and observant turkey cannot predict, explain or even conceptualize the soon coming mass slaughter on Thanksgiving day.
In the same vein, there’s the “parable of the unborn twins” 4 – which I’m sure you’ve heard of as I’ve seen many versions of it online. It’s a story that imagines a conversation the babies are having in their mother’s womb. Based on logical conclusions drawn from available data, one of them thinks that there’s no such thing as ’life after delivery’ and that ’this is all there is’. Besides, he continues, all they’ve ever needed somehow finds them where they are and so there really is no use of wondering about the existence of a ‘mother’ and ’life after delivery’?
As any other parable, the above two should only be taken as such and not be pushed too far. The stories only show that it would be unrealistic to suppose that nothing could ever escape our observation lenses. Even for well known and extensively studied subjects, there are still many unknowns, many phenomena that still fall beyond our capacity to explain. Science, with all the blessings it gives us, and how it thankfully pushes our human race forward, cannot be said to be infallible. As long as it’s still run by humans, science will still err, misdiagnose, misapply, miscalculate or misunderstand; even with the brightest minds at work.
Kings, Massacres & Stars#
A close reading of the aforementioned Christmas stories makes it highly unlikely that they’re meant to be taken as myths. Luke opens his gospel reassuring his correspondent, the most excellent Theophilus, that what he’s about to read is a product of extensive research and that he can actually have “certainty” in the factuality of the accounts (Luke 1:1-4). How strange would it be then if, after such a preface, he immediately went on to report legends as facts? Matthew on the other hand starts his gospel with a carefully researched genealogy of Jesus and without losing a breath, he goes on to recount the story of his birth. It’s then evident that, if you pick any of the gospels, you should know you’re reading what’s intended as true history; at least by the way the books present themselves.
Moreover, one wonders: why would Matthew report this story of wise men – the people who were guided by a ‘star’ – and not just leave it altogether? If you’re a first century Jew and you’re writing with a purpose of inspiring Jews; a people known to distance themselves from anything related to star-gazing or astrology (Isaiah 47:13), seeking omens(Leviticus 19:26) let alone any form of sun, moon or star worship, why then would you report about seemingly strange people who might be into questionable practices if it’s not in fact true? Is there anything to gain from it? Jews do not need validation from foreigners – never mind astrologers. Their savior doesn’t need to be ‘discovered’ by aliens – however wise! The difficulties of believing this story to be fake compound. What would I gain if, for example, in order to inspire Muslims, I was to write a story of the birth of Muhammad and include such details of how some Americans, guided by pigs, found him, identified him before anyone else and gave him gifts – perhaps such an extreme and quite silly (and possibly offensive) example, but, you get the point.
Let’s not forget the fact that, Herod the Great, the king of Israel and Judah at the time of Jesus’ birth, got so paranoid and furious about the whole thing that he ordered the killing of all male children that were two years and under, in and around Bethlehem, just to ensure this child that the wise men went to see never grew up to dethrone him (or his descendants).
If you’re making stuff up, you should remain as vague as possible and talk of events that are practically unverifiable, or maybe if you should risk it, tell stories that are very hard to verify. But what you should absolutely avoid is implicating prominent people as antagonists and speak of grave and upsetting events like mass killings. This make it really easy for people to debunk your claims and it puts your deceptions a little bit on the nose – and that’s not a good way to ensure your fabrications last, not to mention having any influence.
Miracles, Intellect & Belief#
The first people who heard and believed these stories were not so primitive nor so savage to the degree that they didn’t comprehend that; virgins and old women (in the case of Elizabeth) can’t give birth, and that God himself was born through a woman He created. It’s quite condescending to think they didn’t understand the implications of believing these out-of-the-ordinary facts. They knew fully the difficulties inherent, philosophical or otherwise, when you decide to believe that God himself (if there’s a God) became man – and quite frankly, I think they might have appreciated this miracle more than us who think ourselves enlightened. Yet, they believed.
It’s not at all idiotic to believe in the truth behind these ‘miraculous’ stories. One doesn’t have to numb one’s intellect in order to embrace them, rather it’s in fact acknowledging the limits that one had always had and not inflate one’s intellect’s capacity. This is a plea to really consider, as I myself do, that those miracles really happened and ponder the implications. If indeed these miracles and events truly happened at some point in history, then you’ll find that this is the kind of truth not to put on your shelf, but one that places great demands on you.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2 Peter 1:16
Would you consider this Jesus story?
Merry Christmas!
