The Nativity Story: Did It Really Happen That Way?

By Mark Roberts @ http://www.markdroberts.com/

The Nativity Story and the Real Mary

The Nativity Story began playing in theaters this past weekend. Attendance numbers were modest, surely not as strong as some would have hoped (including me). But I fully expect that word of mouth will help this film. I spoke with several people who saw it this past weekend, and every person enjoyed it and found it to be a moving portrayal of the birth of Jesus. My guess is that as we come closer to Christmas, millions upon millions of people will see The Nativity Story, both because of what they hear from their friends and because it offers a marvelous way to prepare for what Christmas is really all about. In fact, if you find yourself piled under by present shopping and holiday partying, let me encourage you to do yourself a huge favor and take a couple hours off to see The Nativity Story. It may be the best nine dollars you'll spend this month.

When you see this movie, no doubt you'll wonder along the way: Did it really happen that way? This is an important question, and one that I want to begin to answer in today's post.

Let me say at the outset that The Nativity Story is not meant to be the definitive presentation of the birth of Jesus. It is nothing like a documentary. Rather, it presents itself as a work of historical fiction, or, better yet, history plus fiction. It is one creative vision of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. It provides one perspective among many possible perspectives on what an angel might look like, what life in Nazareth was like, what motivated the magi, etc. etc. The movie goes far beyond what is actually found in the New Testament gospels.

Yet it obviously seeks to remain faithful to these gospels. The Nativity Story doesn't engage in some of the historical reconstructions one can find in hyper-critical New Testament scholarship. For example, Jesus is born in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth, as some scholars would allege. And the miraculous elements of the biblical story are fully intact in The Nativity Story, including Mary's virginal conception.

Of course, at this point the house divides with respect to the question of whether the birth of Jesus really happened as portrayed in The Nativity Story. There is no shortage of skeptics who claim that the biblical narratives are themselves filled with legendary fictions. Even the most ardent Christian can see why they come to this conclusion. After all, the gospel stories of Jesus's birth are filled with supernatural elements, including angelic visitations and two miraculous birth (one to Elizabeth, a post-menopausal woman, and one to Mary, a woman who has not been sexually intimate with a man). In general, we don't tend to believe that such things happen. Moreover, if your worldview doesn't allow for such events, then the only sensible conclusion you can draw is that Christians made up the stories about Jesus's birth. So, not unexpectedly, skeptics answer my presenting question–Did it really happen that way?–with a confident "No." In reality, they would claim, Jesus was conceived and born in the ordinary manner, and we simply don't have the historical details.

At this time I don't want to respond to those who dispute the basic historicity of the biblical narratives. I did this a couple of years ago in a blog series entitled: The Birth of Jesus: Hype or History? In that series I acknowledged that we don't have a lot of information about the birth of Jesus. Yet I explained why what we do have is believable if one grants the possibility of things like angelic visits and miraculous conceptions.

What I do want to weigh at this point is the historical accuracy of The Nativity Story if one assumes the basic authenticity of the gospel narratives. In other words, my question is: If we assume that the gospel stories of Jesus's birth are true, does The Nativity Story accurately portray what happened, especially when it goes beyond the biblical accounts?

The Engagement of Mary and Joseph

In many cases the answer to this question is "Yes." For example, consider the way the engagement/marriage of Mary and Joseph is portrayed in the film. First of all, Mary has nothing to say about her engagement. It is arranged by Joseph and Mary's father. This fits the custom of the time accurately. (In fact, when Mary asks her mother why she has to marry a man she doesn't love, that line is more modern than historical. I doubt the original Mary would have thought such a thing, let alone asked it. The answer would have been too obvious: "Because that's how we do things, Mary.")

Second, The Nativity Story accurately reflects the unusual nature of engagement in first-century Jewish culture. When a man and woman became engaged, they were considered legally married, even though they did not live together or share sexual intimacy for a year. This explains two rather odd but well-informed statements in the Gospel of Matthew:

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together . . . . (Matt 1:18)

When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son . . . . (Matt 1:24-25)

Sometimes people have wondered why Mary, if she was merely engaged to Joseph, would have gone with him to Bethlehem to be registered. In fact, from a legal point of view, they were a married couple, and this explains Mary's going along with Joseph, which we find both in the gospels and in The Nativity Story.

Third, the legal status of Mary and Joseph also accounts for why the movie would portray Mary as liable to be stoned to death. (I'm intentionally avoiding a spoiler here.) From the point of view of the Jewish law, an adulteress deserved the death penalty (Leviticus 20:10). Because an engaged woman was considered to be legally married even though her marriage had not been consummated, Mary was in deep trouble. Her being with child would have been considered impregnable evidence of her having been an adulteress (unless she claimed to be raped).

So, the writer of The Nativity Story (Mike Rich) obviously did his historical homework when it came to the customs and laws for marriage in the time of Jesus's birth. With the exception of Mary's question about why she should marry without love, the portrayal of her relationship with Joseph reflects a nuanced understanding of how things happened at the time.

In my next post I'll consider other ways in which The Nativity Story is (or is not) historically accurate.

Book Recommendations

If you're looking for more information on the history behind the birth of Jesus, let me recommend two fine books. The first I've mentioned before: The Real Mary by Scot McKnight. The second is a very readable discussion of the events concerning the birth of Jesus written by a highly-regarded professor of ancient history, Paul L. Maier. Maier's book In the Fullness of Time is a sane and sober examination of the historical dimensions of the Nativity story. This book also contains Maier's insights on the Easter story and the early church.