Oregonian uses Christmas Eve to discredit birth of Jesus (gee thanks)

By Jason Williams,
Williams is a writer, researcher, and founder of the Taxpayers Association of Oregon.

The Oregonian Wednesday print edition ran a national article by Rudolfo Galvan Estrada III casting doubt on the birth of Jesus. He even called the different details given by Gospel writers as “nearly impossible” to harmonize.  Merry Christmas everyone, and have fun celebrating your controversial and possibly fraudulent holiday according to The Oregonian.

Under this standard, should we expect in the future a full-blown criticism of Mohammad during Ramadan?  Should we expect a deep-dive analysis of Dr. Martin Luther King’s plagiarism accusations on MLK Day?   We don’t discredit MLK on MLK Day because the man was a modern miracle and we have 1,000 years of inspiration to glean from his life to inspire others.  So maybe we shouldn’t attack Jesus on His day of remembrance.

Even worse, this Christmas Eve article is junk journalism.

Here is the author’s charge:

Claim #1

“[t]he Gospels do not agree about the details of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Some do not mention Bethlehem at all… [the Apostle Paul] does not associate him [Jesus] with Bethlehem”

• The author says the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem should be doubted because only two of the five major New Testament writers mentioned it — therefore the other three’s absence is a sign of contradiction.  For starters, a large share of the historical events found in your school history textbook are often derived from a single source.  Many of those single sources were not alive when it happened.  We are fortunate to have two different witnesses who lived at the time of Christ who mentioned Bethlehem.   That is quality record-keeping right there.

The Gospel of Mark did not include any mention of the birth of Jesus because his account is a super-small, super-condensed version of Christ’s life.  It doesn’t mean everything he left out should be disputed.   The Gospel of John did not mention details on the birth of Jesus because his account is deeply personal.  John goes deeper in explaining who Jesus was and what He said.  John was not writing a textbook or making a documentary on Jesus.  John was desperately trying to make what He said come alive.  This is why His Gospel account is so touching and uniquely inspirational.  I suppose John did it wrong and should have been more like a college professor or a lawyer and written something to make journalists happier as opposed to writing something like he did, which changed people’s lives.

The author also says that Paul the Apostle failed to mention Bethlehem.  Like John, Paul was not writing a textbook on Jesus.  Paul’s writings, called epistles, are letters to friends and churches.  These letters are answering problems that the early church faced.  One study showed that Paul’s entire writings coincidentally reaffirm every major tenet of Christ’s teaching.   That is impressive.  Yet because Paul in his personal letters does not spell out geographic or chronological factoids, it allows journalists enough room to consider his works compromised.  It is like faulting Anne Frank for failing to mention key facts on when WWII started in her personal letters.  So absurd.

Claim #2

“The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile”

•  The author says that the differences between Matthew and Luke over Jesus’ birth are “nearly impossible” to rectify.  Luke’s account of Christ’s birth includes a mention of Mary and Joseph going from Bethlehem to the temple in Jerusalem to be circumcised and then to Nazareth.  Matthew’s account speaks about going to Egypt and then going from Egypt to Nazareth.  The author says “gotcha!”  Such two different trips are impossible to harmonize he says.  They are not impossible.  You can work out the missing parts all by yourself.  Here is one scenario: Joseph and Mary go from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for circumcision (fulfills Luke’s details).    They go back to Nazareth because that is where Joseph had his job.  Upon threat of Herod (which could have happened within days or months), Joseph and Mary leave for Egypt and return to Nazareth when it is safe (fulfills Matthew’s details).  No contradictions.  There is no need to call the accounts of Christ’s birth as troubling or flawed.

Furthermore, there is a powerful symbolic reason why the birth of Jesus needs to include both Bethlehem and Nazareth according to the Bible.   Bethlehem was the city in which the messiah was to be born, according to Micah (5:2).  Bethlehem was the city where King David was born, and the Isaiah Christmas prophecy “unto us a child is born” includes the mention of King David’s heritage (9:6-7).   Bethlehem means “city of bread”, and Jesus called Himself the bread of life (John 6:5).  Bethlehem is the city outside Jerusalem that became famous for having pasture in order to raise sheep so people making pilgrimage to the Jerusalem temple could purchase lambs in Bethlehem and then walk them into Jerusalem and take them to the holy temple to sacrifice these lambs as an offering for their sins.  Jesus called himself the “Lamb of God” (John 1:9) who was crucified in Jerusalem for the sins of the world, and crucified on Jewish Passover, which is a high holy day for lamb sacrifice.

Just as Bethlehem means bread, Nazareth means branch.   To understand the branch reference, you first need to understand that God described His people as a tree and a vine on many occasions.  In fact, this is among the most common repeated symbols in the Jewish Bible.  Upon this common symbol, the Bible unloads a lot of messiah verses that speak to the branch to God’s tree. Jeremiah cites the coming messiah on two different occasions as a “branch of righteousness” (23:5-6; 33:15-17).  Like Jeremiah, the prophet Zechariah also on two different occasions foretells the coming messiah as a “branch” to God’s tree (3:8-9, 6:12-13).  Jesus also called himself as a branch in one of his most compelling metaphors (John 15:1-8).  In essence “the branch” came from the city of branches.

These examples don’t prove what journalists are looking for, but they do prove why the Gospel writers wanted to emphasize the importance of these cities for their meaning over the inclusion of biographical trivia.

As said, this is junk journalism at the wrong time.

Right now we need something more meaningful.  As we speak, the nation of Burma just outlawed Christmas celebrations in their country.  In Nigeria, as many as 7,000 Christians were reported killed this year.  There have been widespread attacks upon Jewish people around the world.  This is a good time to honor the faith of people by telling their story that endures beyond the violence.   The media should be celebrating Christmas and Hannukah, and the faith behind it.   During the last two months of the year, 50% of all charity donations occur during this time.  So many people are willing to donate their time during the season that food pantries and toy drives often have to turn people away because there are so many people at once willing to help.  It is a spectacular human phenomenon of compassion driven by faith.   The media should focus more on this and less on hyper-criticizing and tearing down cultural norms and traditions.