The Bible does not say so

This is a Christmas reflection in an attempt to separate fact from fiction. Last year I became acutely aware how much myth has crept into church presentations of the story. I felt that if we allow ourselves to stray beyond the text of scripture then our story of the birth of Christ might have more in common with stories of Santa than me might want.

Of course this could be "grumpy old man" syndrome, but its isn't just that we sanitize the story each year; we really include non-biblical imagery and story aspects. In a story so important surely this should not be so. At a time when, according to a poll this Christmas, many do not believe the biblical story of the birth of Christ, surely we owe it to the world (and our congregations) to tell it as it is.

Let's start with that donkey. Where did he come from? No reference to him in the scriptures. The journey from Nazareth could be around 80 miles (130 km) and the route was difficult and the road would have been poor. Mary is heavily pregnant. I'm not sure that riding a donkey would have been the best option and a cart would have been an alternative. Anyway, since the donkey does not get a mention in scripture let's stop putting him into our version.

It would have taken several days and it looks as if Mary and Joseph arrived at Bethlehem well after others had got there, as we get the "no room at the inn" aspect. So in nativity plays a little boy in a brown dressing gown and a tea towel round his head confronts numerous pub landlords only to be repeatedly told that there is "no room". Now while we do know that some kind of hospitality facility existed (Luke tells us about that in the story of the Good Samaritan) it is unlikely that these were plentiful or that they had much in common either with English pubs or hotels. But the scripture text has much more to tell us.

The only reference to the situation where Jesus was born comes from Luke. Chapter 2 verse 7 tells us that Jesus was laid in a manger because there was no room in the inn. Later Luke tells us that when the shepherds visit they found Jesus lying in a manger.We'll come back to the manger in a moment but the only reference to an inn is that one brief comment in chapter 2. The word in the New Testament Greek is kataluma and Luke uses this word twice in his gospel and Mark uses it once. It is not found in John or Matthew. Apart from this one occasion in Luke 2 the other occasions translate it as guestchamber (AV) - the place where the last supper was held. Since both Mary and Joseph hailed from Bethlehem it would not be unreasonable to suppose that they might have made a beeline for a relatives house, especially in her condition.

Possibly also of significance is that when Luke tells the story of the Good Samaritan the man who fell among thieves is taken not to a kataluma but to a pandocheion. So in the Greek text in which the gospel was originally written Luke makes a distinction. But the translators of the King James Bible exceptionally wrote "inn". This anomaly has also led to the myth of a landlord providing a stable round the back.

Is there evidence for a stable? Early Christian tradition suggests a cave, but what does the Bible tell us? Nothing! The only evidence is a "manger". This was a rack used for holding hay and may well have been wall-mounted as is common around the world today. It certainly could not have been anything like the twee thing you see on Christmas cards and all too often in our churches! What animals might eat from a manger? Certainly not sheep. Pigs would have also been out of the question. It would have to be larger animals such as donkeys or oxen, and a larger wall mounted manger would therefore have been more appropriate.

So that pretty wooden stable and the pretty little trough are very unlikely. In many houses in that part of the world it would not have been uncommon then (and indeed it is not now in rural areas) to live upstairs above an area where animals might be kept at times and where hay and wheat might have been stored. My guess is that upstairs guest room was already bursting at the seems and they ended up downstairs.

Moving on we read about the visit of the shepherds who had heard the news from an angel. I love this part of the story. These men (socially insignificant) are living out in the fields and were keeping an eye on their sheep when an angel appears and the glory of the Lord shines around them. Then a "heavenly host" appears speaking words of praise to God. No reference here to creatures with wings suspended in mid air and singing!

You might have thought that this experience was something worth telling. "Hey you'll never guess but we have just been visited by angels"! But instead it is the message they received that impacts them so they go to check it out as fast as they can. Here we get another glimpse into the birthplace of Jesus. But wait a minute they went in a hurry the scripture said so they certainly would not have travelled with sheep as that can take ages! So no sheep and no reference to the presence of angels, oxen, asses or robins then! No reference here to a star a few feet over a wooden stable either.

It is Matthew who tells us about the Magi. There is no reference to three "kings" and even calling them "wise men" might not be exactly helpful. They were some kind of astrologers but nowhere does it say how many came on that journey. We know from the text that there were at least two of them. The fact that there were three kinds of gifts does not necessarily imply three of them. So the picture of three kings in their crowns each holding a distinctly different gift is not part of the textual account either!

It is worth noting that the Magi found Jesus and Mary in a "house" and not that wooden stable thing on the Christmas card. Could it be that some relatives have already gone home and they had at last been able to move upstairs? Of course, Mary might still have been in the downstairs part of the house as that would also fit the text, but then rule out completely the cave as well as a stable.

The exact timing of this visit is a mystery. We can assume that it would have been after Mary and Joseph had taken Jesus to the temple to "present him to the Lord" and make a sacrifice. So this would have been at least 40 days after the birth as Mary was ceremonially unclean until that time.

The fact that Herod had children under two years old killed does not necessarily imply that the Magi arrived two years after the birth, of course.

So let's take stock. We've lost that donkey and assorted animals. We have no chain of inns, we have no twee little trough. We do have angels but not necessarily with wings or suspended from the sky. We have no kings just an unknown number of astrologers coming to a house.

Much more important is that when we strip away all the unbiblical Christmas card images we are left as the shepherds were with the heart of the story. Remember what excited them was not being visited by angels but what they had been told. Luke tells us that after they had seen the evidence for themselves what they told others was what they had been told: "A Saviour has been born to you - Christ the Lord".

Let's not lose sight of the real value of the present within the wrapping paper.