The First Christmas: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus's Birth

The four-star rating for this book is an amalgam of 5 stars for the author’s very clear explanations of the First Century historical context for the Christmas narratives, and 3 stars for avoiding an opportunity to examine the obvious factuality/contradictory issues of the narratives themselves. The net is 4 stars.The author does not consider the historical factuality of any aspect of the Christmas texts of Matthew and Luke. “Rather, we focus on their meanings. What did and do these stories mean?” (Introduction). He places the stories in their first century context, and then comments on how Christians should understand the stories today (also from the introduction).One reasonably assumes that most Christians, deep down, believe that some form of a blended nativity story is literally and historically true. A functional Christian faith would lose something special if this were not the case. By declining to address textual issues, Marcus Borg, by default, is admitting that the stories do not have a basis in fact. His follow-up focus on an interpretation of the “meaning” of those stories in today’s context is an unwarranted stretch, in my opinion. The stories make the most valid sense when considered in the temporal and cultural context in which they were written. This, Borg does very well. The obvious historical errors in the stories and the contradictions between the stories simply cannot be resolved. Neither can the meanings of the stories be honestly interpreted if removed from their original context.Nevertheless, an understanding of the historical context of these stories does enrich one’s perspective on them. Linking the virgin birth to the contemporary virgin birth stories of Roman emperors, is an example. Jesus is shown to be as phenomenal as Roman emperors. His status is as high as theirs, even though the surroundings of his birth are mean. The book offers many such links to the context of the times. In other publications, these kinds of cultural links have also been demonstrated for non-nativity stories within the Gospels. The explanations of the First Century cultural contexts, as a means of showing WHY the nativity stories were written AS THEY WERE, is the most valuable contribution of this book.I strongly recommend the first half of the book, the half that places the nativity stories in their original temporal, cultural and historical context. You will then view the nativity stories from a much richer perspective. You will become aware of the meanings that the ancient authors of the stories intended to convey. Those are the only meanings that have any validity. Taking the nativity texts out of their original context and dropping it into the modern context leaves behind those intended meanings.As for the second half of the book: Borg adds nothing to what is readily available from the pulpit today, or from good modern interpretations by today’s theologians. These are abundantly available.

As usual, the Borg/Crossan collaboration produces magic found in previous works. Their methodology used is very similar to an earlier work, "The Last Week" and with the same intent: How do we in this age of enlightenment culture, understand the writings of the First Century of the Common Era?They fully recognize that the birth stories of Sts. Matthew and Luke are not literal history and most likely the product of the gospel's authors. Having done that, they move forward with the stories still matter even if "fiction". Demonstrating why they take this academic position fills the balance of the book's content.Borg/Crossan make two major points for me:1) The birth stories are a literary creation that introduces each gospel it prefaces. The stories are parables and as such factual accuracy of events is not the issue - the message of the story is.2) The authors here noted that it is impossible for a democracy to exist with an empire (Ancient Greece) and it is impossible for a republic to exist with an empire (Ancient Rome). It is possible to one or the other but not both. Make no doubt out it, the United States is an empire.I fully agree with the second observation about "coexistence with empire". History strongly support this perspective - "peace through victory" to use their phrase.For the first observation, Borg/Crossan maintain the birth stories support a different perspective - "peace through justice" - and the birth stories were written to counter the Roman, Imperial, theology that dominated the world. While I agree with their cognitive arguments here for the most part, the concept of "what to believe" or live one's life for a "enlightenment-trained" world remains an issue. How is the meanings of the stories legitimately separated from it factual (or lacking thereof) content? The sayings of Lao Tzu come to mind hereOn one hand is Christianity predicated on a series of deliberate lies or do the meanings of the birth stories carry the emotional dreams of people in the First Century CE and can the stories do the same in the 21st Century CE? The work calls into question whether factual events are necessary for the foundation of religious belief? Fundamentalist Christians will answer one way; progressive Christians will answer another.Either way, history is solidly on the side of Borg/Crossan.

The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are so familiar, heard every Christmas in church and on the radio, that I wasn't sure there was much more I could learn about them. How wrong I was! Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan's book started brilliantly; within the first chapter I was hooked on what they unfolded. They approach the birth narratives as parables/metaphors, not particularly addressing modern-day ideas of historicity but instead looking at the narratives and their structure in terms of what the gospel writers might have wanted to say. It becomes clear that Matthew and Luke are very different, with Matthew presenting Jesus as the New Moses, reflecting many images and ideas from Jewish writings, and Luke's emphasis on the stories as an overture to his larger themes of women, the marginalised and the Holy Spirit.The book goes step-by-step through some parts of the nativity stories, explaining the historical context for many of the events, showing the parallels and the differences between the gospels, relating parts to historical or metaphorical events. I found the book began slightly to drag by the end but I was really taken by much of what they said, particularly the links Matthew makes between Jesus, Moses and Caesar. Some more conservative Christians will probably find the liberal tone of the book too much to stomach which is a real shame as there are some real gems in here, but for those with an open mind and an interest in understanding more about the world of the time of Jesus this is an unmissable book.

This is a good book, that offers contextual evidence for the notion that the birth narratives are clearly symbolic and parabolic. I think you'd be hard pressed to be able to seriously defend the factual authenticity of the birth narratives without undergoing some serious mental gymnastics, and swapping overwhelming plausibility for underwhelming and highly dbious possibility.There are interesting passages on symbology and themes running through Matthew and Luke. The only thing I ever wonder is how Crossan and Borg can get away with calling themselves Christians. Is it so they can still hold tenure and get publishing deals. It seems to me that they are at best very tenuously 'Christian'. Not that I'm coomplaining!Moreover, I like books like this because they are short enough to read quickly.

This study of the Infancy Narratives makes complete sense and needs to be understood by Christians of all denominations. It is entirely positive and would satisfy any skeptics who bothered to take the time to explore why Matthew and Luke constructed these parables and overtures to the Gospel and the Cross and Resurrection. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth and never went to Egypt, however the parabolic stories in Matthew and Luke are rich in meaning and celebrating the Nativity story we have all known since childhood is absolutely fine.

Borg and Crossan reflect on the Christmas story as presented in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in this scholarly yet clearly written book. It is an excellent accompaniment to Christmas celebrations and an antidote to both the blatant consumerism and the cloying sentimentality which all too often cloud our appreciation of the story of the birth of Jesus.They stress, at the beginning of the book, that the birth stories in these two Gospels are like overtures which introduce themes which are developed in the later chapters of the Gospels. The authors set the story of Jesus in the context of Hebrew and classical history and literature and show that Jesus brings peace to the world through nonviolence and justice, unlike the Roman empire which sought to bring peace through victory and violence.This book will be welcomed by those Christians who have a radical approach to their faith and who see their work to be through following the example of Jesus' commitment to nonviolence. It is an encouraging and inspiring book for all those who wish to challenge the lies told by empires in the 21st century

I had known for many years that some of the titles used by early Christians to refer to Jesus upset the Romans ( to put it mildly!)This book explains exactly why the use of those titles was so upsetting, and so dangerous to these early followers of "The Way ".This book is a fascinating mixture of politics and theology , and offers real insight into the background of the beginning of the Christian church.