|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Length of Mary's pregnancy
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
As discussed before, there is no record of anyone having to go to an ancestral home for a census.
Totally agree; that's NOT what I'm saying.
There has been a traditional, but wrong, view that Joseph had to go back to Bethlehem because it was his "Ancestral Home", even though he had so little current connection with the place that he had to stay in an 'inn' when he arrived.
This view is based not on what Luke actually wrote; but on the misinterpretation that "there was no room in the INN", implying that Joseph was not a Bethlehem resident. I don't know exactly when this interpretation arose, but I am guessing that it was probably during the early translations from Greek to Latin.
Remove that misunderstanding and its implications, and Luke says quite clearly that Joseph, like everyone else affected, was registered in 'his own city' - the place where he and his family currently lived.
Because Joseph was a descendant of David, he did in fact live in what was also his ancestral city, Bethlehem, but the reason he went there to register was not because it was the ancestral home, it was because he and his family actually, in c6BCE by modern reckoning, LIVED THERE!!!
Everything else in both Luke's and Matthew's accounts is compatible with that interpretation. Yes, in the end they set up their permanent residence in Nazareth. This was for a variety of reasons including the need to keep the child who was the Messiah at some distance from the murderous Herod family, because Mary was from Nazareth, and plausibly because the Galilee had already before Jesus' birth become something of a 'home from home' for Joseph due to the availability of building work. I would expect that in the next census some ten years later Joseph would be a settled citizen of Nazareth and would register there rather than going back to Bethlehem again.
But I am NOT advocating the absurd idea of Joseph having to go to Bethlehem because it was a long ago ancestral home even though he had no current connection with the city. The whole point of my intervention on the thread was to reject that idea.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If we take Luke's account at face value, ie: we assume that there was a census that required people to register at their home town then I agree with Steve. Bethlehem is Josephs home town because that is where he was born and raised, and the move to Nazareth is relatively recent. It doesn't mean Nazareth was just a temporary home where he worked building/repairing homes during the good weather of the summer and went home to Bethlehem in the "off season" when the weather wasn't good for house building. I would say Nazareth was where he had established his home and business, where he worked all year and where he intended to stay, taking a wife in Nazareth was part of his settling down process (and, indeed, it's likely Mary wasn't from Nazareth either - her family appear to be in Judea. My understanding is that Mary would have been known to his family, and he to hers, in order for the marriage to be arranged).
For some reason the census requires men to register in their home town, and Nazareth doesn't count for Joseph even though he's settled there with home, wife and business. So they set off to Bethlehem, where he was born, as his home town. Mary comes with him because her family is in Judea, not Nazareth, and there is no one in Nazareth to care for her. When they get to Bethlehem they need somewhere to stay.
Bethlehem is a small town. It's not Jerusalem regularly receiving pilgrims, it's not a market town regularly receiving traders, the town has no need of an "inn" to accomodate visitors. Probably a few of the larger houses had guest rooms, and if someone came to town to trade they'd stay with the merchant they were dealing with, and they may have taken payment for a stranger looking for somewhere to stay as they passed through for whatever reason. That would be as close to an "inn" as we'd understand it there would be.
Joseph had left Bethlehem, which implies that the family business was not very successful (at least at that time). So, any family he had wouldn't be living in one of those bigger homes. So, no guest room. Maybe a tent on the roof (assuming a small house wouldn't support an actual structure on the roof). Probably a single room with minimal division into chambers, almost certainly with whatever animals they have brought inside where they are safe at night. No actual room for guests. But, it would probably be expected that some of the family give up their sleeping area for the guests - but, it appears this didn't happen. His family did the least they could to accomodate him. Joseph is not an honoured guest by the way he and Mary are treated. Perhaps there's a family grievance that he left, a feeling that he'd deserted them. More likely it would be well known that he got married 6 months before and here he is with his new wife about to give birth, they could work out the maths there, disgraceful! They're family, so they can't be left on the street, but no one was making room for the man who brought shame on himself and his family.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah, it looks like that's just a Julian calendar issue. Still, funny to see it in a traditional English folk carol.
Not really. The Cherry Tree Carol originated in the 14th century, but we didn't switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian until the middle of the 18th, in 1752.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
]Not really. The Cherry Tree Carol originated in the 14th century, but we didn't switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian until the middle of the 18th, in 1752.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the church ever said the birth date was in January.
When the calendar changed, December 25 was moved backwards, but the date remained the same, didn't it? It was always December 25 (as it is in places where the Julian calendar is still used) but one year that was moved a couple of weeks earlier.
As suggested above, maybe the explanation is that people thought they couldn't move such a momentous date, but that still doesn't explain the use in the song of a date in January. Well, other than pious imagining, which has been happening a lot on this thread too.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell: Joseph is not an honoured guest by the way he and Mary are treated. Perhaps there's a family grievance that he left, a feeling that he'd deserted them. More likely it would be well known that he got married 6 months before and here he is with his new wife about to give birth, they could work out the maths there, disgraceful! They're family, so they can't be left on the street, but no one was making room for the man who brought shame on himself and his family.
Exactly, that's what I've been saying. If you translate κατάλυμα as a guest room in Joseph's family house and take the rest of Luke 2 more or less at face value, you end up with some kind of situation going on between Joseph and his family.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Seems to me to be far less convoluted to see Joseph as having distant relatives in Bethlehem who did not know a) about him or b) that he was coming, hence there was no space. Distant relatives turning up in a full house and finding a lack of space I can believe. Someone coming how to his own house I can't.
Otherwise you'd need a whole lot of evidence to show that workers in Bethlehem regularly worked in Nazareth, several days walk away. Does anyone have such accounts of first century housebuilder-carpenters?
Either way, this is all simple guesswork.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I've found this regarding the word κατάλυμα in Luke. According to this scholar, the implication is that the room was a marital chamber which was too small for a birth.
pdf link
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Interesting, but still pretty unsatisfying, in my opinion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: I've found this regarding the word κατάλυμα in Luke. According to this scholar, the implication is that the room was a marital chamber which was too small for a birth.
pdf link
Interesting. This points to the other option I gave before: Joseph and Mary where not alone during Jesus' birth, but they were surrounded by his family.
(PS I like the last sentence in that article.)
[ 27. November 2015, 08:59: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
There are some who argue that it is implausible that Mary could've made the trip to Bethlehem in the West Bank because of the distance - almost two days continuous travel - if she was nine months pregnant. The baby probably wouldn't have survived the trip. There is another Bethlehem - only eight miles from Nazareth which was in existence at the time, so it's possible that Jesus was born there, and the need to connect Jesus to David altered the tradition.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Luke's gospel does not say how long they were in Bethlehem before the birth. Here is what it does say quote:
He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child.
They could have come much earlier and decided not to subject Mary to a long trip when she was further along in her pregnancy.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The article cited by mr cheesy suggests that they got married in Bethlehem.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Otherwise you'd need a whole lot of evidence to show that workers in Bethlehem regularly worked in Nazareth, several days walk away. Does anyone have such accounts of first century housebuilder-carpenters?
Is such evidence really needed? There is general evidence that quite a bit of building work was available in Galilee, in cities like Sepphoris. Joseph had a fiancee in the area (Luke says the 'Annunciation' to Mary took place in Nazareth, and as 'betrothed' rather than married she probably still lived with her family. You're looking at a respectable though far from rich home base in Bethlehem, and Joseph living as a migrant worker or 'catch hand' going where his services were needed around Galilee generally. Local bureaucracy wouldn't want to be chasing such a person, but might be troublesome if he couldn't show evidence of registration, and a solid base where, in effect, the bailiffs could be sent in if necessary.
The Bethlehem house would be a home of a somewhat extended family and probably to our eyes overcrowded. It doesn't need soap-opera ideas of difficulties in the family to see the possibility that things would get a bit stretched when Joseph came home not alone but with a pregnant wife. In a house which included animal accommodation under the same roof, clearing an animal stall and using the manger as a cradle is quite reasonable.
I get that people want to be sceptical about the story; I'm just saying don't add a problem that isn't there in the original text. As Luke says, Joseph went to his own city to be registered, as you'd expect; he had to 'go' there because at the time he was spending a lot of his time elsewhere in less settled circumstances. It's not about someone being sent to register in a long ago ancestral home where he had no current connection; it's an ancestral home he is still connected with, and quite an important ancestral connection for the birth of the Messiah.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Is such evidence really needed? There is general evidence that quite a bit of building work was available in Galilee, in cities like Sepphoris.
Yes. Otherwise we can all just point to our favourite convoluted explanation and suggest that this is what must have happened without any recourse to secondary evidence. That might be good enough for you, but it isn't for me.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
There is another Bethlehem - only eight miles from Nazareth which was in existence at the time, so it's possible that Jesus was born there, and the need to connect Jesus to David altered the tradition.
That's interesting - can you tell us more?
It is an explanation which has been around a while, and has some support by some experts - including some (who either are professional experts or have a vested interest, depending on how you perceive these things in the region.
Unfortunately it seems to me that the best explanation is that the gospel writers disagree about aspects of the nativity narrative: how and where the birth took place and why; what happened afterwards and so on. If we consider the stories in the other gospels (which did not make it into the canon), then we have a range of explanations and stories about the infant and child Christ.
Ultimately I think the gospels themselves may even point to the nativity being a fantasy. If we are saying that the magical details of the birth were remembered accurately until recorded in the gospels tens/centuries later, would they not also be remembered when Jesus Christ was past 30 and beginning his life as an itinerant rabbi and preacher? Would there not be some mention in all of the canonical gospels of this nativity birth narrative?
In Matthew 13:55 John 6:42 Mark 6:3, wouldn't someone have said "ah-ha, no, he was born under miraculous highly unusual circumstances in Bethlehem..." etc? Why wouldn't the gospel writers have included that point in the story - even if nobody actually said it at the time?
My view is that the nativity narrative is likely totally made up and added later. Fortunately nothing about the atonement is based on a superman-style birth myth.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Even his enemies couldn't come up with the "you know his mother was pregnant before Joseph married her? Who knows who his father is, he could be the bastard child of some Roman who raped her and not even Jewish!" to slur his character.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[QB] by mr cheesy;
[QUOTE] Otherwise you'd need a whole lot of evidence to show that workers in Bethlehem regularly worked in Nazareth, several days walk away. Does anyone have such accounts of first century housebuilder-carpenters?
Is such evidence really needed? There is general evidence that quite a bit of building work was available in Galilee, in cities like Sepphoris.
Answering the above from mr cheesy;
quote:
Yes. Otherwise we can all just point to our favourite convoluted explanation and suggest that this is what must have happened without any recourse to secondary evidence. That might be good enough for you, but it isn't for me.
I think you've slightly missed the point I was making, which is in effect "Do we need a whole lot of evidence to show that workers in Bethlehem regularly worked in Nazareth, several days walk away?"
I don't think I'm suggesting that this happened all that regularly in the first place, so we don't need a 'whole lot of evidence of it' anyway. And in the second place, how much evidence can one reasonably expect of this? I suspect that you'd be struggling to find detailed evidence of such 'catch hands' from as recently as my 1950s-60s schooldays, and the further back you go, the less evidence there will be. Back to C1 CE, and you're asking for evidence of a kind unlikely to survive - though of course there might be evidence if one of those hands had a child who became important to a lot of people, so that somebody wrote about it in a life of that son....
Or to put it another way, we have about the evidence we might reasonably expect about one case. Indeed with separate mentions in two 'gospels' we've if anything an unusual amount of evidence.... A case which includes the possibilities suggested by a man with a fiancee in the northern province, and whose descent from the family of David could mean that he wouldn't want to draw attention to himself in projects near home for cronies of a king who didn't like potential rivals.
I've come across a work by someone else taking an interest in this aspect; Kenneth E Bailey has published a nativity drama based on this revised idea of the story, and with a substantial essay explaining the background. It's published by ITV and is called "Open Hearts in Bethlehem". I'm going to try and get a copy.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Steve, I'm certainly not saying that you're wrong, but to make your point suitable for discussion, you need to give us some material to found that discussion on. All you've done so far is make some assertions.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Otherwise you'd need a whole lot of evidence to show that workers in Bethlehem regularly worked in Nazareth, several days walk away. Does anyone have such accounts of first century housebuilder-carpenters?
I was a bit uneasy about this when I first read it, but couldn't quite work out why. Eventually I realised that the reference to 'several days walk away' suggested that you thought workers from Bethlehem would be something like 'commuting' to Galilee, regularly going to and fro.
Apologies if I've misunderstood you there, but to be clear, I wouldn't see Joseph as 'commuting'; I'd expect that he would be living up in Galilee for long spells, months at a time, but not in a 'home'. Rather he would be living, depending on the particular job, in a shelter, or some kind of shed/bothy, or if involved in a major bit of building something like the 'navvy villages' that would grow up around canal and railway construction in 18th/19thC Britain. And he would from time to time move as one job finished and another became available.
Many of the workers on such projects would I suppose be unskilled slaves. But there would also be more specialised workers, and Joseph would be, I think, in that category. Not a stonemason, but a competent 'jobbing builder' and a carpenter but not quite the 'village carpenter' we tend to imagine. He is actually described by the word 'tektOn' which has the same building-related root as the '-tect' bit of 'architect'.
I've now had time to check out the link you offered earlier, and I think it does indeed make pretty solidly the point that (a) 'kataluma' does not primarily mean an 'inn', and (b) that once you've discarded that interpretation, Joseph was clearly returning to the place he basically lived at, 'home' rather than the series of temporary accommodations he stayed in 'on the job'.
On the rest, I do of course recognise that I've been speculating - but I think these are fairly solid speculations rooted in the realities, not just 'fantasising'. As for 'convoluted', well 'convoluted' is what you get when you try to justify the idea of Joseph being sent to register for a census at a place where he needed to stay in an inn!
Among the realities I've been taking account of, and which I've read of in many sources...
Luke does say Joseph 'went up' to his own city - implying that he was initially spending time elsewhere when the time came to register.
Herodian Israel/Palestine was a place with a lot of building going on; the Jerusalem Temple being the best-known example, indeed if I remember rightly still partly 'under construction' when the Romans finally destroyed it. Sepphoris in Galilee was just one of many places with buildings going on at that period; and remained a source of work in rebuilding it after the rebellion caused by the c6CE census. A 'tektOn' like Joseph would have many options.
A fiancee in Galilee would account for Joseph spending some time there; we don't need to be fussy about whether that connection caused Joseph to work up there or whether Joseph working up there led to his bethrothal.
Another reason for Joseph going to Galilee to work would be that as a descendant of David he might be seen as a threat to Herod, and much of the work available near Jerusalem was either Herod's or close associates. Going up to Galilee would seem to offer some distance from that problem.
Gee D, I see what you mean; but I'm basically a voracious reader and 'putter-together' of what I read, but poor at taking notes as I go and at remembering exactly where a particular item came from. But I would not make up the basic info; and in fact on most of the speculations someone else was there before me.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cherubim
Apprentice
# 18514
|
Posted
A) Mary wasn't a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Joseph was the father. It was wholly usual for unplanned pregnancies to happen under the betrothal arrangement while two people were living under the same roof.
B) Mary had a clitoris. She was just another normal woman who had a clitoris and it beggars belief that she didn't know what it does.
C) Alongside having a clitoris and uterus, her gestation with her first child would have been the usual 9 months.
D) A lot of sentimental discredited romantic arsegravy has been written around her pregnancy and Jesus birth. There were no adoring shepherds or wise men, no stars in the sky hovering over Bethlehem, no gold frankincense and myrrh, no adoring cows sheep or other livestock. Jesus was born in Nazareth. The census was just a benign myth dreamed up to add weight to the narrative by an author keen on getting the Jewish audience on the right side.
E) Far from being sexless, Mary had at least one other child.
F) Get used to reading between the lines in the Bible from the perspective of the original author and readership and you'll get more form it, rather than reading it with the eyes of a 21st century reader. Embellishing narrative with what we would see these days as fraudulent embellishments was quite acceptable at the time the text was originally written.
Posts: 10 | From: Charlton | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cherubim:
F) Get used to reading between the lines in the Bible from the perspective of the original author and readership and you'll get more form it, rather than reading it with the eyes of a 21st century reader. Embellishing narrative with what we would see these days as fraudulent embellishments was quite acceptable at the time the text was originally written.
No, it wasn't.
Evidence?
[ 30. November 2015, 00:50: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cherubim:
A) Mary wasn't a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Joseph was the father. It was wholly usual for unplanned pregnancies to happen under the betrothal arrangement while two people were living under the same roof.
The Biblical texts and the historical understanding of the Church says that Mary was a virgin. Also, why assume that Mary and Joseph were shacked up before they were married?
quote:
B) Mary had a clitoris. She was just another normal woman who had a clitoris and it beggars belief that she didn't know what it does.
C) Alongside having a clitoris and uterus, her gestation with her first child would have been the usual 9 months.
Which are points I don't think anyone disagrees with. Christians claim unusual circumstances for the conception, but nothing about Mary being anything other than a normal, human young woman.
quote:
D) A lot of sentimental discredited romantic arsegravy has been written around her pregnancy and Jesus birth. There were no adoring shepherds or wise men, no stars in the sky hovering over Bethlehem, no gold frankincense and myrrh, no adoring cows sheep or other livestock. Jesus was born in Nazareth. The census was just a benign myth dreamed up to add weight to the narrative by an author keen on getting the Jewish audience on the right side.
As I said way up near the start of this discussion, I think the birth narratives in both Luke and Matthew contain "pious fiction" (what you have rather charmingly called "sentimental discredited romantic arsegravy") and both authors present different solutions to the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem but Jesus is clearly from Nazareth dilemma. That doesn't automatically mean that none of the stories have any core of truth to them. The additional elements of stars, magi, shepherds etc all teach us a lot about who they authors considered Jesus to be with parallels in OT stories and midrash (especially relating to the birth of Moses for Matthew), Greek and Roman stories, and titles routinely used for Caesar all making an appearance in the birth narratives.
quote:
E) Far from being sexless, Mary had at least one other child.
There is potential for entire threads discussing whether the English translation which talks of Jesus' "brothers" refers to brothers, half-brothers or cousins (I know, because we've had lots of those discussions over the years).
Though I would agree with you that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born, and that she had other children, there is actually no conclusive evidence to support that.
quote:
F) Get used to reading between the lines in the Bible from the perspective of the original author and readership and you'll get more form it, rather than reading it with the eyes of a 21st century reader. Embellishing narrative with what we would see these days as fraudulent embellishments was quite acceptable at the time the text was originally written.
Of course, we've not just got to deal with 21st century readers. There is a massive body of Christian literature that also takes the same essential details from the stories - Mary was a virgin, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born in Bethlehem to fulfill Messianic prophecy. The "embellishments" in the original narratives serve a purpose, and as 1st/2nd century accounts (depending on when you consider them to have been written and whether they were in circulation in the Church prior to that) carry with them the expectations of that culture - which include a reduced expectation of them being "literal history" in the way we might expect a biography to be.
Of course, popular culture has both emphasised and expanded upon those "embellishments". There are times when we may need to remind people that the "star" was not something bright and obvious (why then would Herod need to find out when it appeared?) but more likely an astrological sign that only held meaning to the eastern astrologers, as just one example of a popular embellishment of the actual narrative.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As I said way up near the start of this discussion, I think the birth narratives in both Luke and Matthew contain "pious fiction" (what you have rather charmingly called "sentimental discredited romantic arsegravy") and both authors present different solutions to the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem but Jesus is clearly from Nazareth dilemma. That doesn't automatically mean that none of the stories have any core of truth to them. The additional elements of stars, magi, shepherds etc all teach us a lot about who they authors considered Jesus to be with parallels in OT stories and midrash (especially relating to the birth of Moses for Matthew), Greek and Roman stories, and titles routinely used for Caesar all making an appearance in the birth narratives.
<snip>
Of course, we've not just got to deal with 21st century readers. There is a massive body of Christian literature that also takes the same essential details from the stories - Mary was a virgin, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born in Bethlehem to fulfill Messianic prophecy. The "embellishments" in the original narratives serve a purpose, and as 1st/2nd century accounts (depending on when you consider them to have been written and whether they were in circulation in the Church prior to that) carry with them the expectations of that culture - which include a reduced expectation of them being "literal history" in the way we might expect a biography to be.
Of course, popular culture has both emphasised and expanded upon those "embellishments". There are times when we may need to remind people that the "star" was not something bright and obvious (why then would Herod need to find out when it appeared?) but more likely an astrological sign that only held meaning to the eastern astrologers, as just one example of a popular embellishment of the actual narrative.
I'm not sure where you are going with this thought, Alan Cresswell, but (obviously) all these things you describe as "embellishments" are part of long-held traditions of the Church.
If one is saying that these things (stars, magi, shepherds) are embellishments, that in a lot of ways it is a minor step further forward to say that other things (the birth being in Bethlehem, the virginity of Mary etc) are also embellishments.
If one is using Tradition as a standard of truth, then one is surely forced to accept the whole package. If one is allowing that there may be embellishments, in the absence of other supporting information, then whatever one accepts or rejects is to personal "taste" - to use an inappropriate term.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"Embellishment" isn't a term I would prefer to use, I was only using it since that was Cherubim's choice of word. But, in this case I'm using it mainly of the elements of the narratives that Matthew and Luke do not hold in common (Star, Magi, Shepherds), rather than what they agree on (born in Bethlehem of the Virgin Mary). They are bits that add something extra. And, by and large, I have no reason to reject them outright - adoration of the Christ child by rich and poor, wiseman and unborn prophet, signs in the sky and angelic messages all contain important truths about this child.
Though, we have tended to embellish the original embellishments, and sometimes it's worth stepping back and deciding just what of the school nativity play it useful to hold onto as Christian teaching and what is just good fun. What I tend to have great difficulty with is when we develop a midrash of three kings, with names and everything. Or, a star that was seen by the shepherds "And to the earth it gave great light,
And so it continued both day and night". The Gospels do not give a number to the Magi, and they weren't kings. And, quite clearly the star was not obvious to anyone else, neither the scholars in Herods court much less shepherd in the field.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, but the gospels may only have some aspects in common because they've copied from each other.. (or a common source)..
That's a pretty poor way to make judgements about what is an "embellishment" in my opinion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It probably depends on where you draw the line between "essential part of the narrative needed to adequately express the gospel" and "part of the narrative that tells us profound truth but is not essential to an adequate expression of the gospel". If we make a decision that the Nicene Creed is a summary of the minimum to adequately understand the gospel then under the Constantinople version we only have "incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" - the 1st council of Nicea doesn't even have that. That makes the entire birth narratives except "Mary was a virgin, who conceived a child by the Holy Spirit" additional details (embellishments).
The additional details (by that measure) of the Gospel accounts, whether the birth narratives or the details of the teaching and ministry of Christ, do make the Gospel stories richer, fuller and more compelling than the Credal summaries though. And, I for one, am glad they are there.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cherubim
Get used to reading between the lines in the Bible from the perspective of the original author and readership and you'll get more form it, rather than reading it with the eyes of a 21st century reader.
How do you determine the perspective of the original author and readership?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cherubim
Get used to reading between the lines in the Bible from the perspective of the original author and readership and you'll get more form it, rather than reading it with the eyes of a 21st century reader.
How do you determine the perspective of the original author and readership?
Moo
Well we could start with the readings given to the passage in the first couple of centuries after it was written. We can then at least get something of the mindset of a culture significantly closer (pre-industrial, pre-Enlightenment, still aware of effects of living in the Roman Empire, all that stuff), and with (say) 16 centuries less cultural clutter.
Thing is our new poster will find a pretty firm view on the truth of the Gospel accounts there, much to his disappointment...
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even his enemies couldn't come up with the "you know his mother was pregnant before Joseph married her? Who knows who his father is, he could be the bastard child of some Roman who raped her and not even Jewish!" to slur his character.
Although they did in the Gospel of Nicodemus, chapter 2:
quote:
3 The elders of the Jews answered and said unto Jesus: What shall we see? Firstly, that thou wast born of fornication; secondly, that thy birth in Bethlehem was the cause of the slaying of children; thirdly, that thy father Joseph and thy mother Mary fled into Egypt because they had no confidence before the people.
4 Then said certain of them that stood by, devout men of the Jews: We say not that he came of fornication; but we know that Joseph was betrothed unto Mary, and he was not born of fornication.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even his enemies couldn't come up with the "you know his mother was pregnant before Joseph married her? Who knows who his father is, he could be the bastard child of some Roman who raped her and not even Jewish!" to slur his character.
Although they did in the Gospel of Nicodemus, chapter 2:
Which - given its probable date looks more like an earlier anticipation of Alan's point above.
[ 01. December 2015, 11:42: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I never claimed it was an original point.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Remove that misunderstanding and its implications, and Luke says quite clearly that Joseph, like everyone else affected, was registered in 'his own city' - the place where he and his family currently lived.
Because Joseph was a descendant of David, he did in fact live in what was also his ancestral city, Bethlehem, but the reason he went there to register was not because it was the ancestral home, it was because he and his family actually, in c6BCE by modern reckoning, LIVED THERE!!!
This makes sense to me.
In our church community our records typically indicate that people in their twenties and even in their thirties still live here (and even with their parents), when they are in fact married and living somewhere else. Sometimes they even come back to vote, not having established residency and registered anywhere else.
So I can easily imagine that Joseph would be a Bethlehem boy even if he had been living for long enough in Nazareth to get engaged there. However it is more than likely that Mary was also from Bethlehem, since her cousin Elizabeth lived near Bethlehem and they were close enough for Mary to visit her when she became pregnant.
I also don't think that we need to assume any particular falling out with Joseph's family for them not to have had room when Mary was about to give birth. Maybe they were simply of humble circumstance and did not have room. It is unlikely that Mary would have given birth all by herself, alone with Joseph and the animals. Family members and local midwives would surely have been in attendance.
An important point, I think, is that the specific things mentioned have symbolic significance, but they do not tell the whole story. The fact that there "was no room for them," for example, surely relates somehow to people not having room in their hearts for God, or for the Light, in that dark time.
I think that Matthew offers evidence that Mary and Joseph were not estranged from their family, since they evidently stayed in Bethlehem long after Jesus' birth and were living in a house by the time that the Wise Men arrived.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Luke 3
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar – when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene – 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
This historical detail comes in the next chapter to the one about Quirinius being (or not) the Governor of Judea. Has anyone actually examined these dates and persons for accuracy? If so, why would Luke include this detail - and be correct - and also include a detail that (some think) is incorrect?
Could it be that the first one is actually correct but that the external corroborating evidence hasn't been found yet? It seems strange that Luke would include external historical details and yet get them wrong.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Has anyone actually examined these dates and persons for accuracy? If so, why would Luke include this detail - and be correct - and also include a detail that (some think) is incorrect?
The dates seem to jibe reasonably well. Tiberius ruled from 14 AD to 37 AD, so the 15th year of his reign would be circa 29. Herod Antipas's rule was from 4 BCE to 39 AD, while his brother Herod Philip went from 4 BCE to 34 AD--so the 29 AD date works for them too.
Apparently this reference is all anybody knows about Lysanias. No way to confirm its accuracy.
What is truly impressive in terms of accuracy is the reference to the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. How can two people share a single high priesthood? Well, Annas originally was high priest from 6 AD to 15 AD when the Romans put him out of office. Caiaphas eventually took over (although exactly when seems unclear, but somewhere between 18 to 25 AD). But, by Mosaic law, a high priest is a high priest for life so, even though he no longer held the office because of the Romans, Annas was still considered "high priest." And, of course, the 29 AD date works for both Annas and Caiaphas. (We don't know exactly when Annas died, so I think we have to give it to Luke that Annas was still alive in 29--Wikipedia seems to think that Annas made it to the 40s.)
So Luke seems to have it exactly right, at least to the extent that I am able to check the dates. And, as you say, this gives some cause for believing that Luke was right earlier, too.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
