THE
REAL CHRISTMAS STORY
Let me
say right from the start of this piece that there is no doubt in my mind that
Jesus Christ really did exist. Flavius Josephus, a contemporary of his times
who was a Jew and also a Roman citizen and a prolific writer, stated in one of
his writings that there was a prophet in Jerusalem called Jesus who was
crucified on the orders of the Roman governor. This makes Jesus’ existence, a
matter of fact.
But the
question that has plagued historians, scientists and religious leaders is; how
much of the Christmas story is really fact and what parts of the story are are
myths? It is my purpose in this piece to give you some of the facts that we
already know and compare them with the myths.
Was
Jesus born on December 25th?
That
question is the easiest to answer. He was not born on that date. The early
Christian church did not celebrate Jesus' birth. It wasn't until 440 A.D., that
the Christian church officially proclaimed December 25th as the birth of
Christ. This was not based on any religious evidence but on a pagan feast.
Saturnalia was a tradition inherited by the Roman pagans from an earlier
Babylonian priesthood on December 25th and it was used as a celebration of the
birthday of the sun god. It was observed during the winter solstice. The early
Christians were well aware of the dangers facing them under Roman rule so they
wisely decided that they would celebrate the birth of Jesus on the same day as
the pagan feast, Saturnalia. That way, anyone else seeing them celebrating
Jesus’ birth would presume that they are really celebrating the pagan feast.
December
25th was the winter solstice according to the old Julian calendar,
and it was on that day that Mithraism, chief rivals to Christianity during the
fourth century, celebrated the birth of their god, Mithra. The Christians
figured that those who believed in Mithraism would assume that the early
Christians were also celebrating that religion when in actual fact; they were
celebrating the birth of Jesus and wouldn’t be harassed by the non-believers.
The
Bible itself tells us that December 25th is an unlikely date for Jesus’ birth.
Palestine is very cold in December. It was much too cold to ask the Roman
citizens to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Also
according to the New Testament, the shepherds were in the fields (Luke 2:8-12).
Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They were only in the
fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the
spring or early fall. It is also known that Jesus lived for 33.5 years and died
at the feast of the Passover, which is at Easter time. He must therefore have
been born six months prior to Easter thereby making the date of his birth
around September or early October.
John
the Baptist also helps us determine that December 25th is not the day that
Jesus was born. Elizabeth, John's mother, was a cousin of Mary. John began his
ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. Jesus began his
ministry when he was 30 years old. As Emperor Augustus died on August 19, A.D.
14, that was the accession year for Tiberius. If John was born on April 19-20, at
2 B.C., his 30th birthday would have been April 19-20, A.D. 29, or the 15th
year of Tiberius. This would seem to imply that the year Jesus was born was 2
B.C. Since John was 5 months older, this implies that Jesus was born sometime
in the autumn of 2 B.C.
I am
however more inclined to believe that Jesus was not born in 2 B.C., but
instead, he was born in 10 B.C. Most experts agree that Jesus was born between
12 and 4 B.C., as King Herod, who ruled over Judea at the time, is recorded as
dying in 4.B.C. therefore his alleged murder of the babies in Bethlehem had to
have obviously occurred prior to his own death. Augustus had held a complete
census of Roman citizens three times during his rule. They were held in the
years 29 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. The reason why Joseph who was living in
Narzareth at that time, went to Bethlehem in 8 B.C., was that he always went to
Jerusalem once a year for religious purposes, not unlike Muslims going to Mecca
at least once in their lives if at all possible. The year 14 A.D. is obviously
not the year of Jesus birth and 29 B.C. simply goes too far back. This leaves
us with the year of Jesus birth as being 8 B.C. when he and his parents arrived
in Bethlehem to stay while visiting Jerusalem nearby. I will explain that later
in this piece.
Matthew
claims that the birth of Jesus occurred during the reign of Herod the Great of
Judea, a puppet king of the Romans, whom we know died in 4 B.C. Luke also tells
us that Jesus birth happened during Herod's reign. Luke even adds what appears
to be detailed and historical evidence of the period. He writes that Jesus was
born during a census or registration of the populace ordered by emperor
Augustus at the time that Quirinius was Roman governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3).
In reality, this has to be a fabrication because Quirinius was not the governor
of Syria and Judea during Herod's kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province
of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. In
other words, ten years separated the rule of Quirinius from Herod. Based on the
foregoing, the birth of Jesus being the 25th of December in the first century
is a myth.
Was it
a star that drew the three wise men from the east to Bethlehem?
Ask
yourself this question. How far away is our nearest star from Earth? Proxima
Centauri is the closest star to Earth. It is 4.2 light years from us. Sirius is
the brightest star in the sky but it is 8.6 light years from us. Neither of
those two stars (other than our own sun) are the brightest lights in the sky at
night. The brightest light in the sky (other than the sun and moon) is the
planet Venus. It follows that neither the light of these two stars or the
reflection of the sun from Venus would be sufficient enough to be lighting up
Bethlehem even on the clearest of nights.
It
therefore follows that the existence of the star we have seen countless times
in paintings, Christmas cards and in the movies showing Bethlehem being lit up
by a star, is a myth.
First
of all, let me clear up another myth right now. The three men who visited Jesus
were not kings. It had been said that they were from the Orient. That does not
mean that they were from China, Korea or Japan. The term ‘Orient’ is derived
from the Latin word ‘oriens’ meaning ‘east’. The word ‘magi’ refers to the
ancient Zoroastrian priests, so they would most likely have come from a country
where the Zoroastrian religion was widely practiced. This would be either Iran
or Iraq which is obviously east of Bethlehem. The three men were astrologers.
That would justify calling them ‘wise men’. Babylonian astrologers were
thoroughly familiar with the movements of the stars and planets and that is what
makes me believe that these three men came from Babylon, Iraq.
The
Bible says this about the three wise men, “And, lo, the star, which they saw in
the East, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child
was.” This would imply that a star began moving from the east and stood on top
of Bethlehem. Stars don’t move and then suddenly stop, because when the Earth
turns each day, the position of Earth in relation to the stars in the sky
shifts. For the star of Bethlehem to stop would mean that the Earth would have
stopped spinning. Obviously the star stopping and then standing over Bethlehem
is another myth.
It is
also hard to believe that the so-called star was needed as a guide to direct
the astrologers from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, a mere eight kilometers away
especially since there was a road that led directly from Jerusalem to Bethlehem
and I might add, still does. I know. I drove a rental car on it between Jerusalem
and Bethlehem.
What
then were these three men following? They weren’t following anything because to
follow something is to follow an object, person or animal that is moving and
the light that drew them to Jerusalem was stationary. What then was the light
in the sky that made them choose to go westward to Jerusalem?
Scientists
have extrapolated the stars and planets back to 8 B.C. and have concluded that
during that year that Jesus was two years of age, there were two planets in the
western sky that caused a great light to shine from them. They were Jupiter and
Saturn. Now normally these two planets are not in line with each other however
there is an ancient Babylonian clay tablet dated at 8 BC, which describes the
celestial events for the upcoming 13 months. The tablet shows that Jupiter and
Saturn would remain together in the constellation of Pisces for eleven months
and come in close conjunction three times. This would account for the much
larger light in the sky during that time.
To the
Babylonian astrologers, Jupiter represented the star of Marduk, the supreme
Babylonian god. Saturn was the steady one of the two planets because it was the
planet Jupiter that moved in line with Saturn. The conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn in the sky predicted from the Babylonian's viewpoint, the end of the old
world order and the birth of a new king chosen by God. To the three
astrologers, this meant that a new king was being born west of them and the
only kingdom west of them was the Kingdom of Herod. They likely had read and
discussed the Messianic prophecies and were anxious to see when this Messianic
King would appear and if so, their interpretation of the conjunction of the two
planets would be correct in foretelling of the birth of a new king in Judea.
The
Bible tells us remarkably little about the star, with only the Gospel of
St Matthew mentioning it. He records the wise men asking: “Where is he who has
been born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and have come
to worship him.” I believe that when they said that they saw Jesus’ star in the
east, they really meant that they were in the east when they saw the star. My
conclusion is based on logic because if they were heading towards it, the light
from the two planets would have been west of them.
The
three Wise Men from Babylon saw the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn all
three times in the eleventh-month period and by the time it occurred the third
time, it was then that they decided to go to Jerusalem to see if their theory
about a new king being born west of them was true. They would have arrived
there sometime in the autumn of 8 B.C.
Why didn’t
the Wise Men go straight toBethlehem?
I don’t
know how much the three Wise Men knew about the history of the kings that ruled
west of them but I think I am safe in saying that they at least knew that King
Herod ruled Judea and that his palace was in Jerusalem, hence their journey to
Jerusalem was to confirm their belief that a new king was born in Jerusalem.
According
to the Gospel of Mathew, the three Wise Men, from the East are said to
have visited Jesus after his birth, bearing gifts. They are mentioned only in
the Gospel of Matthew, which says that they came “from the east to Jerusalem to
worship the Christ, “born King of the Jews”.
I don’t
see how these three men could have possible suspected that a baby called Jesus
would eventually be called the King of the Jews many years after his birth so
that part of the Gospel is a myth.
Why did
they then after being in Jerusalem, go directly to Bethlehem?
King
Herod always feared that he would be usurped. That is why he ordered the deaths
of two of his own sons. When he learned that there were three men from the east
making enquires as to where the new born king was, he had his soldiers search
for them and bring them to him.
The
text describes the three Wise Men explaining to Herod about the purpose of
their visit by use of a quote from a prophet: “But you, Ephrathah (it was an
earlier name for Bethlehem) though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins
are from of old, from ancient times. ― Micah 5:1-3
Let me
quote from the Gospel of Mathew. “When Herod the king heard this, he was
troubled, and all Jerusalem with him and assembling all the chief priests and
scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:
`And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the
rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people
Israel.’ Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them
what time the star appeared; and he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, ‘Go and
search diligently for the child, and when you have found him bring me word,
that I too may come and worship him.’
Of
course, it is conceivable that the prophet was referring to King David who was
born a thousand years earlier. In any case, Matthew's introduction of the three
Wise Men gives the reader no reason to believe that they were present on the
day of the Jesus’ birth. It is conceivable that the Wise Men found Jesus around
two years after his birth, rather than on the exact day of his birth. This may
explain why later in the scripture, Herod allegedly ordered that all babies in
Bethlehem who were two years old or younger were to be killed. If he thought
the so-called new king had just been born, he would have ordered only the
newborns to be killed.
Herod
must have concluded that if there was a new king having been born within the
previous two years, he would have been born in that small town just four miles
southeast of Jerusalem. Now who better to send to Bethlehem than the three men
who proclaimed that their purpose for the visit to Herod’s kingdom was to find
the new king? They wouldn’t raise any suspicions.
According
to Mathew, King Herod told the three Wise Men to go to Bethlehem and find the
new king and to then report to him where the new king was so that he too can
worship the new king. Of course, he had no intentions of worshiping anyone
other than God. He hoped to kill the young usurper.
Did the
three wise men arrive in Bethlehem on the night of Jesus’ birth?
Matthew's
introduction of the three Wise Men gives the reader no reason to believe that
they were present on the day of Jesus’ birth. It is common knowledge nowadays
that they found Jesus around two years after his birth, rather than on the
exact day of his birth. This may explain why later in the scripture, Herod
allegedly ordered that all babies in Bethlehem who were two years old or
younger were to be killed. In the words of Matthew 2:16-18: “Herod
perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and
sending (soldiers), killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in
all the borders thereof, from two years old and under.” unquote
I have
to accept the common belief that the three Wise Men found a baby they believed
may have been the new king and that baby was Jesus when he was two years old.
Why they chose him rather than another is beyond my comprehension. By the way, they were not kings. If they were
kings, they wouldn’t have come alone.
Did
King Herod really order the murder of the infants in Bethlehem?
This
cruel deed of Herod is not mentioned by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus
or any other historian of those times, including the writer Luke although
Josephus relates quite a number of atrocities committed by the king during the
last years of his reign. If he did order the slaughter of the small children in
Bethlehem, the number of these children would have been so small that this
crime would have appeared as being insignificant amongst the other misdeeds of
Herod and subsequently not mentioned at all. Further, King Herod needed Roman
authority to kill that many people since he needed that kind of authority when
he asked the Roman emperor for permission to execute his own grown sons. There
doesn’t appear to be any record of him asking for Roman authority to kill the
babies in Bethlehem.
This
then raises the likelihood that the reported massacre and its association with
King Herod were introduced into the scriptures by the writer of Matthew in
order to give Jesus at least as high a human standing within emerging
Christianity as Moses held within Judaism.
If the
massacre did take place, it does not make sense that the Herod's surviving son
later recalls nothing about Jesus nor his importance later as Jesus was
preaching to the multitudes. If his father had ordered the murder of the babies
in Bethlehem in order to eliminate any possible usurper taking his kingdom from
him, Herod's son wouldn't be oblivious of a man called Jesus. Moreover, if
Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of Jesus’ birth (Matt. 2:3), why is
it that later in Jesus' career, the same author of Matthew claims that people
had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and
his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)? I think Herod got a bum rap for a crime he
didn’t commit.
Was
Jesus really born in Bethlehem as we know it?
Surprisingly,
Luke knows nothing about the star, nor the three Wise Men, nor the exact place
Jesus was born other than it was in a manger, but note that there is also no
reference to a stable and animals surrounding the birth of Jesus. This scene is
a product of later Christian imagination based on a text from Isaiah,
“......the ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's crib (manger), but
Israel, does not know, my people do not understand.” Isaiah 1:3).
Luke's
reference to the baby being wrapped in swaddling clothes is copied from the
birth of Israel's famous King Solomon, son of David. This sign of
identification sends an important message to Luke's Jewish-Christian readers
that Jesus was to be even greater than Israel's wisest king. Luke's gospel
describes the visitors to the baby Jesus as shepherds, not the Wise Men.
According to the later writers of the gospels, the shepherds hear of the birth
from an extraterrestrial, which the Bible calls an angel. That version would
even make Jesus’ birth appear as if divine when in fact it was simply a normal
birth. I should add that many Roman emperors tried to convince the populace
that their births were also divine.
The
Bible mentions two Bethlehems. The one most familiar to Christians is Bethlehem
south of Jerusalem. (Micah 5:2) It is one of the oldest towns in Palestine, and
was already in existence at the time of Jacob’s return to the country. Its
earliest name was EPHRATAH, OR EPHRATH or EPHRATAH. (Genesis 35:16,19; 48:7)
After the conquest, Bethlehem appears under its own name, BETHLEHEM-JUDAH.
(Judges 17:7; 1 Samuel 17:12; Ruth 1:1,2) The book of Ruth is a page from the
domestic history of Bethlehem. It was the home of Ruth, (Ruth 1:19) and
of David. (1 Samuel 17:12) It was fortified by Rehoboam. (2 Chronicles 11:6)
It was here that Jesus was supposedly born, (Matthew 2:1) and here that
he was visited by the shepherds, (Luke 2:15-17) and the Magi. (Matthew 2.)
The
other Bethlehem lies 71 miles north of Bethlehem-Judah. After Israel’s entry
into the Promised Land, when the land
was being divided up among Jacob’s twelve sons, Bethlehem is listed as one of
the cities given to Zebulun, not Judah. (Joshua 19:15) This Bethlehem is in
Galilee and is located 6 miles north west of Nazareth and north east of Tivon,
on the northwest side of the Jezreel valley not far from Mount Carmel. That is
the area where Jesus grew up as a child and as a young man.
We know
that there was a Roman census two years after the time of Jesus birth and all
heads of Roman families and their families were to report to the towns of their
births. Luke got his facts wrong about the census of Augustus. Such an imperial
census would only apply to Roman citizens of the empire, not to the Jews and
since Joseph was a Galilean, he was not under direct Roman rule. That being as
it is, it is beyond me as to why Joseph, who was not an ignorant man, would
take his wife and child on a long journey to Bethlehem for the census taking
which didn’t apply to him. Now he did visit Jerusalem each year and he knew
that to do so at the time of the census taking, it would be crowded in the
Bethlehem that was close to Jerusalem, so I am wondering why he chose that
particular time to go there when he would have had to know that village would
be overcrowded. But go there he did nevertheless and as to be expected, he couldn’t
find any decent place to stay at so he ended up spending the night in one of the many caves surrounding the
village.
The
Gospels do not, unfortunately, give the date and place of Joseph's birth nor
his death so we have no idea for sure as to whether or not Joseph was born in
the Bethlehem near Nazareth or the one near Jerusalem but for some reason for
which I do not understand, he chose to take himself and his betrothed, Mary to
the Bethlehem near Jerusalem unless it was to stay there during one of their
annual visits to Jerusalem.
What is
known from the canonical Gospels is that Joseph lived at times in Nazareth in
Galilee and also stayed for a couple of years in Bethlehem in Judea. This may
be proof that Jesus was born two years previous to the visit by the three Wise
Men since according to the gospel of Mathew; Joseph would have fled Bethlehem
shortly after the visit by the three Wise Men in 8 B.C.
It was
important, however, for the authors of both of these gospels, (Mathew and Luke)
that Jesus be born in Bethlehem because it was the city of David from where, it
was prophesied, Israel's ruler would come (Micah 5:2). Even so, John's gospel,
contrary to Matthew and Luke, relates the common knowledge that Jesus was not
born in Bethlehem, and that he was not a descendant of David (John 7:41-42). It
is conceivable that Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem that is closest to
Nazareth and not the Bethlehem that is closest to Jerusalem.
Was
Joseph a descendant of King David?
One of
the first examples of things not ringing true can be found in the attempts by
the authors of Matthew and Luke to trace the ancestry of Jesus back to the
Jewish king, David. It was from the royal house of David that the messiah was
expected. However, upon close examination, the tables of descent in these
gospels become transparently artificial, with many errors and downright
contradictions. For example, the two gospels cannot agree on the lineage of
Joseph, the father of Jesus. Matthew has 28 generations between David and
Jesus, while Luke has 41 for the same period of about 1,000 years. In Matthew's
gospel, Joseph's father (i.e. Jesus' grandfather) is said to be Jacob, while in
Luke it is claimed that he is Heli. They cannot both be right. I guess we will
never know the answer to that question.
The
claims in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was of royal
lineage are further weakened by the fact that elsewhere in all four gospels,
there is no indication during the ministry of Jesus that he and his father were
of noble descent. Rather, he appears as a man of humble background from an
obscure rural village (Bethlehem) in Galilee. Furthermore, according to Mark,
Jesus himself appears to reject the belief that his messiahship was dependent
on Davidic descent (Mark 12:35-37).
Was Jesus conceived by a holy spirit?
The
apostle Paul makes no reference to the virginal conception by the mother of
Jesus when speaking of Jesus' origins and divinity. His epistles were written
during the 50's A.D. and predate all of the four gospels. Although Paul never
met Jesus (who died about 30 A.D.), he personally did know James, the brother
of Jesus and yet, despite this eye-witness link to Jesus, Paul apparently knew
nothing of the virgin birth, for he states only that Jesus was ‘born of a
woman’ (Galatians 4:4) and was ‘descended from David, according to the flesh’
(Romans 1:3), thereby implying a normal birth. Why then does the Bible say that
Jesus was conceived by a holy spirit?
Mary
and Joseph were betrothed at the time Jesus was conceived and being betrothed
in those days meant that a man and woman could live together but they could not
sleep together until they were married. That meant in simplest terms; no sex
until they were married. When it became apparent that Mary was pregnant, this
created a great problem for Joseph. The law of the land at that time was that
if a woman who was betrothed became pregnant as a result of having sex with
another man who was not her betrothed; the betrothed man was obligated to stone
his betrothed wife to death. Joseph was very much in love with his wife and the
last thing he wanted to do was to kill Mary, his betrothed.
I am convinced
that Joseph impregnated Mary but since it was considered a sin for him to do so
while they weren’t married, he and Mary had no other choice but to declare that
a holy spirit impregnated her. Nowadays, if a man told us that was how his wife
became pregnant, we would say he was nuts. But in those days, the people were
highly superstitious and such a claim would be believed it if was uttered by
someone who was highly respected. The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, so
central to the traditional Christmas story, was not part of the teachings of
the first Christians, whom it should be remembered, also remained within the
Jewish faith in those early years of Christianity.
The
silence of the earliest Jewish-Christian authors about the miraculous birth of
Jesus seems strange, given that they were trying to convince their readers that
Jesus was divine. This silence raises doubts about the authenticity of the
later nativity stories with which we are so familiar.
Was
Jesus born in a manger?
According
to the Bible, Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem in Judea. As I said
earlier, Jesus was born in 18 B.C. and his birth wasn’t in Bethlehem, Judea.
Further, I don’t believe that he was born in the Bethlehem near Nazareth since
Joseph already had a home in Nazareth as that was where his carpenter shop was
located.
A
manger was a stable or what we now call a barn where animals were kept. I don’t
question the fact that Joseph and his wife and child went to Bethlehem in Judea
for their annual visit but when they arrived, they had no other choice but to
spend their initial time in such a shelter. Many Roman citizens living in
Jerusalem also were born in Bethlehem and had to go there, Subsequently, Joseph and his family would stay there
temporarily while the census was being taken. Bethlehem was terribly
overcrowded at that time so he was desperate to find shelter from the cold. At
night, it can get very cold outside n the
Autumn months.
My wife
and I have visited the so-called birth place of Jesus and when I saw it, I
realized then that it was not possible that Jesus was born in that exact
location. Bethlehem is rife with caves and it follows that the holy family
would have had no other choice but to stay in a cave until they could get
better lodgings. It was the practice in those days that the shepherds would
keep many of their sheep inside the caves at night because of the cold temperatures.
The
so-called birthplace of Jesus is on flat terrain and it is not conceivable that
it was previously a cave. Admittedly, there is a nearby hill but that could
have had caves in it but that is not where the church says that Jesus was born.
The holy family could have been in a cave in that hill or another nearby hill
where they stayed. The road to Jerusalem from Nazareth was a long one and if
Joseph didn’t have enough money to rent lodgings in Jerusalem, it would cost
them nothing to sleep in one of the many caves surrounding Bethlehem which was
only four miles from Jerusalem.
Did
Joseph really flee to Egypt?
According
to the Gospel of Mathew, Joseph had a dream that told him to flee to
Egypt soon after Jesus was born. I don’t doubt that Joseph may have had a dream
to flee Bethlehem but it wasn’t right after Jesus was born since Jesus was born
approximately ftwo years earlier. Remember that he was born in 8 B.C., and in 8
B.C., his father Joseph took him to Bethlehem with his mother during one of
their annual visits to Jerusalem. Then the three of them stayed in Bethlehem
for two years before he had his dream and left that town and headed back to
Nazareth.
It is
also impossible to reconcile Luke's account of the family of the newborn Jesus
soon returning to Nazareth in Galilee, with Matthew's assertion that the family
of Jesus immediately fled to Egypt for several years to escape Herod's wrath (Matthew
2:13-14). Luke has Joseph and Mary present with Jesus in the temple in
Jerusalem when he was forty days old, and then returns straightaway to Nazareth
(Luke 2:22,39). Also, Luke records that each year the family went to
Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover (Luke 2:41) this does not tally with
Matthew's claim that they were hiding out in Egypt. Matthew, with his predilection
that Old Testament prophecies be fulfilled in the life of Jesus, appears
to have invented the massacre of the innocents to fulfill a prophecy of Jeremiah
(31:15), and the consequential flight to Egypt to fulfill Hosea's
prediction that “out of Egypt I have called my son.” (Hosea 11:1).
I don’t
believe that Joseph took his family to Egypt. The journey would have been a
fairly long one. They would have had to have traveled to the coast and then
south along the coast to the border of Egypt. The distance would be at least 80
miles. Then to get to an Egyptian city the size of Jerusalem in Egypt would be
Qantara el Sharqiya which is another 120 miles. That means he would have chosen
to go 200 miles into a country he knew nothing about. If he wanted to flee, he
would take his family directly back to Nazareth which was his original home and
which was only about 70 miles north of him along a route he was familiar with.
He would be safe in Nazareth. because King Jarold had no authority in that past
of the afrea where Joseph and his family lived. .
Matthew's
stories of the Wise Men's visit to Herod and Jesus and
Herod's
massacre of the innocents which caused the holy family to flee to Egypt; are
all historically improbable. Moreover, it should be noted that Luke also got
his facts wrong about the census of Augustus. As I said earlier, such an
imperial census would only apply to Roman citizens of the empire, not to the Galileans
such as Joseph because the Galileans were not under Roman rule at that
time.
In
ancient times it was often claimed that important people had miraculous births.
Plato was said to have been born by the union of the god Apollo with his
mother. Likewise, Alexander the Great was said to have been conceived when a
thunderbolt fell from heaven and made his mother Olympias pregnant before her
marriage to Philip of Macedon. In the Book of Genesis we read that sons
of gods had intercourse with women to produce heroes (Genesis. 6:4).
Even the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls tell of the miraculous
birth of Noah and how his father Lamech was suspicious that his wife had been
made pregnant by an angel. Also the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who was
born about 20 B.C., contain evidence that some Jews of the period were
speculating about miraculous births of religious heroes. Philo relates how
Hebrew notables such as Isaac and Samuel were conceived by barren women by the
intervention of the divine Spirit.
Fundamental
Christians believe that the Bible is the ‘word of God’, an infallible record of
the Almighty's influence on his creation, and therefore to be taken at face
value. The Bible is definitely the word of Man and the last interpretation of
it took place in the Sixteenth Century when King James ordered that the Gospels
were to be rewritten into one final book. A careful study of the nativity
narratives of Matthew and Luke indicate that the supposedly unerring ‘word of
God’ is full of contradictions and inventions. The most plausible conclusion is
that the familiar Christmas stories in Matthew and Luke are religious myths,
awkwardly grafted onto an earlier non-miraculous tradition about Jesus' birth.
They appear to be legends recorded by later Jewish-Christian writers who were
attempting to explain the origins of a man whom they considered divine.
None of
what I have written here is intended to belittle the man called Jesus. He existed
and his teachings which have been passed down to us for almost two thousand
years; are still as valid now as they were when he told them.
Christmas celebrations nowadays
Christmas
has always been a great time of the year for me and my family and no doubt
millions of people around the world. But as time has moved on, there have been
attempts at trying to push Christmas aside. For example, In Texas, a fight had
erupted over whether to remove a nativity scene from a courthouse. In England,
the idea of replacing “Christmas” in some areas with the term “Winterval” has
provoked outrage and rightly so. Many people disagree over whether it’s a time
of religious observance or as an alternative, a commercialized revel. What
really pisses me off is the many stores around the country commercializing
Christmas in November. They could at least wait until the beginning of
December.
The
early Christian church, as it did with many things, kind of appropriated or
co-opted the holidays or festivities that were already going on, that had
nothing to do with Christ or with the Christian church. They finally chose
December 25th as the day of Jesus’ birth.
Although
the so-called wise men brought gifts to the baby Jesus, this didn’t bring about
Christmas gifts for centuries after that particular time in history. For many
centuries, Christmas was celebrated by feasts and revelry and of course, much
drinking of alcoholic beverages. Of course, times haven’t changed anything.
That still goes on nowadays also. That aspect was maintained in the Christmas
festivities in Britain and in much of Europe well into the late Renaissance,
even into the 18th century. You have in the Renaissance all kinds of partying
and every court, every household, would appoint a “Lord of Misrule” who was a
master of the party for the 12 days of Christmas. His job was to stir up the
revelry, stir up the disobedience, and play with the idea that this was a time
to break from the ordinary routines of their lives. The church didn’t like that
aspect, but that’s how people celebrated the days before and on Christmas in
years past.
How
then did Christmas re-emerge as a quiet family event in the home?
That
was really a 19th-century development. By the beginning of the 19th century, a
lot of the Christmas festivities had gone out of fashion. The Puritans
completely turned up their noses at the Christmas revelry. They felt it was
inappropriate for the occasion. They passed laws against the public celebration
of Christmas. Various invested parties in the 1830s, 1840s started to revive
interest in Christmas. They were reviving a nostalgic vision of merry old
England, a vision that never really existed, but it was attractive — this idea
of the family getting together. At this point, Britain was getting increasingly
urban, so there was this movement in the cities, that advocated bringing the
celebration of Jesus’ birth into the house rather than a public celebration in
the streets or in the village.
There
wasn’t a lot of gifts being giving
associated with Christmas at all during those years. The gift-giving event was
on New Year’s. Christmas wasn’t declared a bank holiday until 1834. In the late
17th century, when the Puritans had a lot of sway, there were years there when
Parliament sat on Christmas Day. It was a workday. And even after it was
declared an official holiday in Britain in 1834, a lot of people preferred to
take New Year’s as their holiday. You may recall that in Charles Dicken’s A
Christmas Carol, Scrooge wanted his clerk working in his office all Christmas
Day. Dickens in the manuscript wrote about Scrooge’s clerk wanting Christmas
Day off so he could be with his family that day.
"You'll
want all day to-morrow, I suppose?" said Scrooge. "If it's quite
convenient, Sir." "It's not convenient," said Scrooge, "and
it's not fair.”
This
makes me suspect that in England and elsewhere, everyone who had a job had to
go to work on Christmas day as if it was simply another work day. Of course, if
Christmas fell on a Sunday, they wouldn’t have to go to work.
So
singing carols and a quiet night with the family —had that ever existed? Well,
that existed among the middle class. So if you had the money to have a
household staff to run your houshold, then you would have done that. It cost a
lot to acquire all the accessories to create that kind of scene, to bring in
the food, to create all of that glamorous elegance.
It was
Queen Victoria's German-born husband, Albert who popularized the Christmas tree
in Britain after their marriage in 1841 ad the first Christmas card in 1843,
and a revival in carol singing. However, it turns out that according to the
rules of polite English behavior, Christmas trees shouldn’t be put in in the
home until Christmas Eve. I for one and I sure that I speak for millions of
people, would like to see our trees up for at least a week before Christmas and
still there for at least a couple of days after Christmas.
Some
families open their presents after a late supper on Christmas Eve. My family
opens their presents after breakfast on Christmas Day. Some people believe that
Christmas presents should not be placed under the tree. My family members place
the presents under the tree. It’s fun watching my grandchildren prowling under
the Christmas tree to see if any presents have been left behind. One thing I
have noticed about Christmas trees is that rarely does anyone buy the ‘icicles’
(thin strips of silver paper) to throw onto the trees anymore. They were hard
to remove for the next year.
Boxing
Day was a far more charitable day than Christmas was. It referred to the
literal boxes that might be given by a landowner to his workers. Boxes were
also given to the poor. By the 19th century those boxes would eventually be
given to your household staff. They’d be working like dogs on Christmas Day to
support your party, and on Boxing Day they might have a half-day off or a full
holiday, and they might be given a little box of money, small tokens, some
biscuits or homemade wine.
I have
always loved Christmas. The carols and other Christmas songs certainly bring
cheer to Christians everywhere and no doubt many non-Christians also. When I
lived in the small town of Wells as a child in the middle of British Columbia,
a group of singers would go up and down the small streets singing carols on
Christmas Eve. I would get all goose pimply when I would hear I’m Dreaming
of a White Christmas because in Wells, during every Christmas Eve and
Christmas Day, soft snow was always falling to the ground.
As a
child, I always believed in Santa Claus. I was never convinced however that he
only brought toys to good children. I think even us bad children got toys at
Christmas. When I lived in that small mining town in British Columbia as a
young child during World War II, the two mines bought toys for every child in
the town and Santa was there at the community centre handing them out to our outstretched
hands when our names were called.
When my
two daughters were of an age when they would no longer believe in Santa Claus,
my wife and I told them that we would stop hanging the stockings from the
mantel of our fireplace. I said however that if they still believed in Santa
Claus, he would visit us and fill their stockings. My daughter’s weren’t
stupid. They told us they believed in Santa Claus even when they were in their
late teens and Santa always filed their stocking at the mantel above the fireplace
year after year.
How did
the kindly Christian saint, good Bishop Nicholas, become a roly-poly red-suited
symbol for merry holiday festivity and commercial activity? History tells the
tale.
The
year 1821 brought some new joys of Christmas with publication of the first
lithographed book in America, the Children's Friend. This ‘Santa Claus’ arrived
from the North in a sleigh with a flying reindeer. The anonymous poem and
illustrations proved pivotal in shifting imagery away from a saintly bishop.
Santa Claus fit a didactic mode, rewarding good behavior and punishing bad
children by leaving them a long, black birchen rod, for their parents to use when their children are bad. Gifts were safe toys, pretty doll, peg-top,
or a ball; no crackers, cannons, squibs, (for writing) or rockets. No drums to stun their
mother's ears, nor swords to make their sisters fear; but pretty books to store
their mind with knowledge of each various kind. The sleigh itself even sported
a bookshelf for the pretty books. The book also notably marked Santa Claus'
first appearance on Christmas Eve, rather than December 6th. The jolly elf
image received another big boost in 1823, from a poem destined to become
immensely popular, A Visit from St. Nicholas, now better known as The
Night Before Christmas.
One
year, I gave my grandchildren a special gift that was in book form. It was The
Night Before Christmas. Except, I read the story and my voice was recorded
in the book and when they turned each page, music would follow and then my
voice would continue reading them the story.
I
sincerely hope that your Christmas is an enjoyable time for you and your families.
To those of you who don’t celebrate Christmas, I wish you seasons greetings.
No comments:
Post a Comment