Christmas cards and nativity scenes depict Mary and Joseph being turned away from Inn and seeking sanctuary in a stable, but I was told that Mary and Joseph stayed with ‘family’ and were downstairs with the animals which was quite normal for that time. Which is right?

One problem with harmonising the two nativity stories in Matthew and Luke is that there seems to be some disagreement over where the story begins. Matthew makes no reference to Nazareth until after the family return from Egypt when Joseph settles there for safety (Matthew chapter 2, verse 22-23). In chapter 1, verse 24, it says he took Mary home as his wife even though she was pregnant, so Mary may have come from Nazareth, but Joseph may have come from Bethlehem.

This would make sense in the light of Luke’s story about ‘each having to go to their own home town’ during the census. It should be noted that the census and historical data that Luke gives to explain Joseph having to go to Bethlehem are almost certainly wrong, as external sources to the gospel record censuses being taken, but none that match to Luke’s description. Also, notably, Quirinius (mentioned in chapter 2 verse 2) wasn’t the governor of Syria until after the death of Herod the Great.

The traditional Nativity
If Joseph was from Bethlehem, then it is likely that Jesus was born in a humble family home, which may have contained animals. However, Luke’s account is the source for most traditional nativity imagery as it contains the ‘classic’ story of Joseph and Mary being turned away from the inn. It may be they took refuge in the stable below the inn, or possibly in an animal shelter in nearby fields. This latter possibility would explain the proximity to the shepherds, who Luke records were the first visitors to Christ.

The details in Luke’s account are sketchy and don’t mention a location for the ‘manger’ that Mary laid Jesus in (chapter 2, verse 7). However, Luke’s story has echoes of John’s gospel of Christ coming to a world ‘who did not receive him’ (John chapter 1, verse 11). The reference to there being ‘no place’ for Jesus is telling, as is his acceptance by the shepherds – ‘outsiders’ who were often unable to keep the religious demands of the day. The message Luke seems to be implying is that Jesus has come for the humble, the poor, and the marginalised.

Born in a cave?
Finally, if Jesus was born in a ‘stable’, it would probably have looked very different to the wooden constructions depicted on most Christmas cards. Animal shelters in the area were often little more than caves, perhaps with small constructions over them. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, allegedly founded in the fourth century by the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine, contains a small rock grotto which is claimed to be the site of Jesus’ birth, and which matches the kind of rudimentary animal shelters used at the time.

Why do the genealogies between David and Jesus differ so much?
Why are there only 12 (or 13 if you count Jesus) generations after the exile in Matthew’s account, when the writer claims there are 14 in each era?
How can the claim that one genealogy reflects Mary’s ancestry be supported?
Are we told anywhere in the Bible that Mary is descended from David?
Does this discrepancy cast doubt on the Bible as ‘the infallible Word of God’?

There are some preliminary points to make about the use of genealogies by the gospel writers. Firstly, they were a common way of starting a ‘biography’ in the culture of the time. Secondly, within Jewish circles genealogies were important as they proved whether you were a genuine member of the chosen people or not. At this point it’s also worth noting that the tradition of the ‘virgin birth’ would not effect Jesus’ genealogy, as there was a concept of ‘legal parentage’ in the Levitical tradition that saw the child’s mother’s first husband to be regarded as the father.

Against this background the gospel writers wanted to establish Jesus’ credentials and make statements about him. However, the existence of two differing genealogies that contradict each other does seem to be problematic.

Construction problems
Some of the problems can be linked to source material. It has been noted that Luke’s account partly follows the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was in common use among Greek-speaking Jews from about the first century BCE, while the names in Matthew seem to parallel the names in the Masoretic Hebrew text 1. Names change in translation, so this may account for some of the discrepancies.

There is also an interpolation in Luke’s account, where he calls “Joanan” “the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel” (chapter 3 verse 27). In fact, Rhesa is the Aramaic word for ‘prince’. ‘Joanan’ is a Greek variant of Hananiah and in 1 Chronicles chapter 3, verse 19, Zerubbabel’s son is called Hananiah. Zerubbabel was considered a ‘prince’ among the Jews who returned from exile, so it would appear this title was mistakenly included in the genealogy that the gospel writer constructed.

Attempts at reconciliation
There have been other attempts to reconcile these differences. One way is to note that ‘son of’ can also mean ‘descendent of’. It was common for contemporary Jews to identify themselves as ‘children of Abraham’, that is descendants of Abraham. Also, it has been suggested that Matthew listed the heirs to the throne of David rather than the actual people involved, as an attempt to underline Jesus’ royal descent. This would explain why the two genealogies diverge at this point, with Matthew listing Solomon after David, while Luke lists Nathan.

Another attempt at reconciling the two is to suggest that one of the genealogies is actually Mary’s; the first known version of this ‘solution’ was by Annius of Viterbo in about AD 1490. There is a long-standing tradition that Luke gathered his unique material for his gospel in ‘interviews’ with Mary after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Also Luke’s account focuses more on Mary while Matthew’s focuses on Joseph. If this unverified tradition were true, then that would add weight to the idea that his different genealogy could have been Mary’s rather than Joseph’s.

Unfortunately for this theory, both genealogies claim to represent Joseph’s family tree. Neither gospel refers to Mary as having Davidic descent. In Luke Joseph has to go to the ‘town of David’ and takes Mary with him because she is betrothed to him. In Matthew, Joseph is called ‘Son of David’ when visited by an angel (Matthew chapter 1, verse 20). The account of Mary’s angelic visitation also includes a reference to Joseph’s ancestry (Luke chapter 1, verse 27).

A different purpose?
It would appear then, that at least one of these accounts cannot be accurate. However, it could be asked whether they were ever meant to be considered as accurate records. The genealogies in both gospels serve a particular theological purpose.

In Matthew the gospel writer breaks the genealogy down into three sections of fourteen names, each marking a section of time. The three sections are from the covenant with Abraham until the crowning of King David, from David until the exile in Babylon, and then from the return from exile until the birth of Jesus. Matthew appears to count the exile as a ‘generation’, as only 13 names are listed after it (although this might be a textual flaw).

Fourteen was a significant number in first century Jewish thought. The Hebrew letters that spell ‘David’ add up to 14 if used as numbers. In addition, what Matthew is outlining are six ‘weeks’. The arrival of Jesus is highly symbolic then, as it marks the beginning of a seventh ‘week’ in God’s plan. Matthew may be implying that Jesus’ arrival marks the culmination of God’s salvation work and the beginning of a ‘Messianic Sabbath’.

Including women
In addition, Matthew takes the highly unusual, and even potentially scandalous, step of including women in his genealogy. These aren’t just any women – he lists Tamar who was made pregnant by her father-in-law, Judah; Rahab the Canaanite prostitute who aided the spies in Jericho; Ruth who was a Moabite; and Bathsheba the adulteress and mother of Solomon.

Matthew’s purpose in including all four ‘fallen women’ could be a deliberate attempt to counter accusations related to Jesus’ own conception. Although Matthew claims that a ‘virgin birth’ took place, doubts were cast about who Jesus’ father was during his ministry 2. Matthew includes these four women to make the point that many of the great Jewish heroes had dubious parentage.

There are also similarities between the genealogies. Both are set up to show Jesus’ descent from King David. As Rob Bell notes ‘Son of David’ was a “volatile term… Just to say the name was to drag up all of the pain of exile and oppression and failure, and at the same time all of the hope and longing and suspended promises that hung in the first-century air.” 3

Pagan terms made acceptable
Similarly both emphasise Jesus’ humanity. This is particularly the case in Luke, where the genealogy follows the proclamation that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ in chapter 3, verse 24. In the wider pagan culture that title could have been interpreted as Jesus being a ‘demigod’ like some of the Greek heroes. It was also a title applied to Roman Emperors whose divinity was to be worshipped throughout the Empire. Evidence of Emperor worship in first century Palestine has been found, so like ‘Son of David’, ‘Son of God’ was also a loaded term.

Luke’s insistence on the humanness of Jesus allows him to apply a ‘pagan’ title to Jesus without offending Jewish sensibilities. Luke also traces Jesus’ lineage back to Adam, the first ‘son of God’, to demonstrate this is an ‘acceptable’ term for Jewish believers to use.

Conclusion
These differences underline the twin aims of the gospel writers in constructing these genealogies. They wanted to reinforce their claims about Jesus Christ and to make specific religious claims about him. Perhaps the genealogies are best read like that, with the claims they make about Jesus being the Messiah, seen as the main point for their inclusion in the gospels.

Notes
1 G.B. Caird, Saint Luke (Pelican New Testament Commentary 1963), p.19
2 In a confrontation with the Pharisees in John chapter 8, they effectively call Jesus an illegitimate child (verse 41). This probably represents a genuine criticism of Jesus by the religious elite during his ministry.
3 Rob Bell, Jesus Wants to Save Christians (Zondervan, 2008) p.79

Several pre-Christian traditions were reinvented, or ‘Christianised’ as Christmas was established. The date of Christmas was established as the 25 December, partly to supersede the Roman festival of Saturnalia1. And it is notable that even certain elements within the birth stories of Jesus contained in the gospels have parallels in pagan religion2. However, the link between Christmas tree baubles and so-called ‘witch balls’ is harder to prove.

Like the Christmas tree itself, glass baubles seem to have originated in Germany. The practice of having a decorated evergreen tree in the home was a German tradition from the middle ages. It originates from the probably-legendary story about St Boniface who sought to convert Germanic tribes in the eighth century.

Boniface is alleged to have cut down a sacred oak tree during the winter, and hailed an evergreen tree growing in the oak’s place as a symbol of Christ, the ‘ever-living’ Saviour. As such, the evergreen replaced the oak at the centre of midwinter festivities, by those Germans who had converted.

The Christmas tree was apparently ‘imported’ to Britain by Prince Albert, husband of the British Queen Victoria, in 1840. Albert was German and the presence of an evergreen tree was a traditional part of the German festival by that point. The practice soon spread to the USA and other parts of the world. According to claims of modern ornament-makers, glass baubles were invented in Lauscha, Germany, in 1847. They soon became popular in Europe, and then in the USA after Frank Woolworth, of Woolworths fame, began importing them.

Like a Christmas bauble, a ‘witch ball’ is a hollow sphere of glass. Apparently they were traditionally hung in the windows of the home to ward off evil spirits or curses, usually having been ‘blessed’ by a ‘witch’. It’s not known how widespread their use was in folk traditions. They have undergone a bit of a revival due to the modern-day rise of Wicca as contemporary belief system.

The provenance of ‘witch balls’ is hard to ascertain. They may be a more modern invention with exaggerated claims being made for their history. Obviously, if this is the case, claiming that baubles are derived from ‘witch balls’ makes ‘witch balls’ appear to have been used for longer than they in fact have.

The similarity in construction between baubles and ‘witch balls’ probably explains the way these two items have been linked. There is a tendency among some Christians to ascribe ‘occult’ or ‘satanic’ origins to just about anything, and this seems to be the case here, but there is no real evidence that baubles have an occult origin.

Notes
1 ~ JCJ Metford, Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend, (Thames & Hudson 1983), p.67
2 ~ There are similarities between Matthew’s infancy narrative and legends about the birth of Caesar Augustus, hailed in the Roman Emperor as ‘Son of God’, including the ‘virgin birth’ and astronomical signs. Similarity does not necessarily imply plagiarism, but some commentators have suggested that the author of Matthew invented these stories to bolster the claims made about Jesus Christ by his followers.

Although astrology, as a form of divination, is specifically condemned in the Old Testament (eg in Leviticus chapter 19, verse 26), this prohibition only extended to the Israelites, as the chosen people who had received the divine law.

The nation of Israel was forbidden to practice astrology because it was closely linked to worship of the stars and other heavenly bodies, which made it a form of idolatry. It also detracted from the divine Law entrusted to Israel, and the fact that Yahweh dwelt among the Israelites in the Temple at Jerusalem. The Old Testament writers placed an emphasis on how Yahweh – and the worship of Yahweh – was meant to be the focus of the Israelite people.

However, there are two important things to be drawn from the story of the wise men visiting Jesus. Firstly, it is a highly symbolic story – the wise men, or ‘magi’, come from the East, that is Babylon, the culture which conquered and enslaved the Israelites many years previously. It is ironic then that these ‘wise men’ would come and prostrate themselves at the feet of Israel’s king.

Equally symbolic is their chosen profession. The Greek word ‘magoi’ is the root of the English words magic and magician. The only other New Testament story which uses the word ‘magoi’ is in the description of Elymas in Acts chapter 13, verse 8, when the word is often translated as ‘sorcerer’. As ‘astrologers’ the ‘magi’ would have been key religious figures in the society they hailed from, and so their inclusion in the story makes a serious point: Jesus the new-born ‘King of the Jews’ is also the ruler of the gentiles.

This has been a recognised meaning behind the story since the time of Ignatius of Antioch, who died in c.107AD. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatious wrote: “From that time [the appearance of the star] all sorcery [mageia] and every evil spell began to lose their power; the ignorance of wickedness began to vanish away; the overthrow of the ancient dominion was being brought to pass…” [Epistle to the Ephesians section 19, quoted in JC Fenton, Saint Matthew, 1963]

The gospel author has therefore included this story to illustrate that Jesus is more than just King of the Jews – his arrival on Earth would affect all human beings, typified by the reverence accorded to him by gentile wise men who don’t follow God’s law.

A second important principle to draw from this story is that God uses many different means to reveal divine truth to human beings. In Matthew’s gospel it is possible for God to guide heathen magicians using the guidance mechanisms they understood. However, God’s use of gentile means to communicate with gentiles does not contradict the laws given to the ‘chosen people’ prohibiting astrology.

While many commentators would regard the story of the wise men as symbolic, it is worth noting that in the book of Daniel, which was probably composed in Babylon, there is a prophecy that the ‘Anointed One’ would come after a certain period of time (Daniel chapter 9, verses 25-26).

If the story of the magi is true, it may be that a copy of Daniel ‘s prophecy remained in Babylon after the repatriation of the Jewish captives at the end of the exile. This perhaps explains why the magi associated the appearance of an unusual astrological sign with the birth of a ‘King of the Jews’.

What did the angel Gabriel look like?

Gabriel is the name given to the angel who announced to Mary that she would give birth to Jesus supernaturally (Luke chapter 1, verses 26-38), having already announced the conception of John the Baptist to John’s father Zechariah (Luke chapter 1, verses 11-20). The name was also applied to the angel who interpreted visions for the prophet Daniel in Daniel chapter 8, verses 15-26 and chapter 9, verses 20-27.

The white school nativity outfit complete with a tinsel halo and pretty wings is a conflation of ancient Greek imagery (see a previous freelance theology article for more about haloes) and other Biblical passages that talk about angels having wings (eg Isaiah chapter 6, verse 2). Descriptions of angels shining brightly in Luke chapter 2, verse 9 tallies with Old Testament descriptions of God’s glory (called ‘shekinah’ in Hebrew). In Revelation heavenly residents are described as being clothed in white (Revelation chapter 4, verse 5, and chapter 9, verse 9), so it follows that angels would be similarly clothed.

While there are a number of different spiritual beings described in Scripture, including winged figures (Isaiah chapter 6, verses 1-7), many-eyed wheels (Exekiel chapter 1, verses 15-18), and bizarre hybrid creatures (Revelation chapter 4, verses 6-8), it would seem that Gabriel looked like a human. Daniel describes him as “one who looks like a man” (chapter 8, verse 15), although then Gabriel ”terrified” Daniel and caused him to fall prostrate in fear (verse 17).

Although the account in Luke does not describe Gabriel, Zechariah is “gripped by fear” when he appears (Luke chapter 1, verse 12). Gabriel tells Zechariah that “I stand in the presence of God” (verse 19), indicating a human-looking body, capable of standing. Mary, in contrast to Zechariah, is not scared by the angel’s appearance, but is ‘troubled’ by his greeting (chapter 1, verse 29). So it is perhaps safe to assume that Gabriel looked, to Mary, like an ordinary man.

The English word ‘angel’ is derived from the Greek word ‘angelos’, which literally means ‘messenger’. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word ma’lak which was used to describe supernatural messengers was also applied to ordinary humans entrusted with delivering a particular message. In other books that were written at about the same time a more complicated ‘angelology’ began to form, and most of the imagery applied to angels can be traced back to these ideas.