In faith,

C. Hays

1. “The Manger and the Inn: The Cultural Background of Luke 2:7″, by Kenneth E. Bailey (Theological Review, II/2, 1979, pp. 33-44)–This is a scholarly theological journal article on the cultural and etymological issues surrounding where Jesus was born and laid. Bailey provides strong evidence that it was a “guest room,” and that the “manger” is a feed trough in the main room of the house possibly cut into the floor.

2. “The Star of Bethlehem,” a new DVD from Genius Entertainment produced by Stephen McEveety (The Passion of the Christ) based on extensive research by Rick Larsen–This presentation is unlike any you have ever seen on the star. It was indeed a natural event, and it occured exactly as the Bible describes it. Larsen brings together biblical references, astronomy, cultural insight, and the use of technology in the most convincing presentation I have ever seen. You can also access his research at http://www.bethlehemstar.net. The DVD is widely available.

Merry Christmas!

Why does the fact that only one of the gospels describes Jesus’ birth, and only one describes the magis’ visit, supposedly make those events less credible? The four gospels are essentially eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ ministry. The disciples weren’t around for his birth but relied on second-hand accounts of them. The events surrounding Jesus’ birth were important enough to be included even though they hadn’t personally witnessed them. I think the fact that the gospels have so few events that the disciples could not have witnessed actually makes them more credible. These men were honest reporters, who wrote what they saw.

Right. And I bet next you’re going to tell us Nestor the long eared donkey wasn’t there either. You historical revisionists disgust me!

(I would have given a sarcasm alert but that sort of ruins the fun. )

My only criticism is that RW is so used to being in the academy that he forgets how people hear what he says. Think of all the Christmas pageants going in the Church of England with all the dear sweet little kids celebrating the nativity, etc. and then the ABC uses the word legend in context with the nativity.

Methinks the man has a bit of a pastoral tin ear.

The other thing to remember (ok, so I misled you) is that Williams is Welsh, and this influences his rhetoric. The way Williams speaks is almost always more enlightening than what he says. I think of Williams’s teaching a bit like a musical score: on the printed page it only really makes sense to those who have profound musical gifts, who can “hear” the music just be seeing the notes. When his teaching is spoken (and preferably in person) then it is as if the piece is being performed by the best musicians in the world, and it is capable of moving and enlightening everyone who hears it.

I have heard Williams speak many times, sometimes in groups of four or five, sometimes in cathedral congregations of a thousand. Every time I am struck by being in the presence of a holy man, someone who has stood and seeks to stand in the presence of Christ.

So I’m not surprised Dr. Williams was misquoted. As far as biblical matters are concerned, reporters have some pretty profound idiots among us. I remember one NPR interview in particular, with one of the translators of the TNIV. The reporter wasted a good two minutes of the interview just dumbfounded that Matthew was never referred to as “St. Matthew” within the text of the scriptures. He was convinced that the translator must be wrong about this… despite his obviously never having read a bible.

I went to Israel back in ‘98 and visited the Church of the Nativity. The church’s tour guide basically said everything Williams had said and then some. I’m sure the guide gets groups from every English-speaking denomination (our group certainly was a blend) and none of them make a fuss about how the facts shatter our Christmas traditions. In fact many of them are happy to have the facts. As any earnest seeker of truth should be. Any fuss raised is totally fabricated to sell tabloids… which is to be expected of the British press.