Thread: Kerygmania: How historical are the nativity stories? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001283
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Assuming that most people fall somewhere in between the two extremes of "It's all made up" and "It all happened exactly as written", I'd be interested to know how historical people think the various nativity stories in the New Testament are (I mean, it is 'nearly' Christmas!)
I've heard it said that they're obviously the most non-historical bits of the NT, that they were written to add cred to Jesus, giving him David as an ancestor, and so on. However, if I was to make up birth stories to big someone up, they probably wouldn't look like those we read. Laid in a manager, no space in a proper bedroom, shepherds the first visitors - they're pretty humble beginnings, which for me lend an air of historical authenticity.
So, what do Shipmates think?
[ 02. July 2015, 23:40: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Giving Jesus David as an ancestor through Joseph, right?
How does that work when Joseph, isn't, erm, well....
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
It works if adoption counts.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
It had to have happened . Just remember that the 2 geneologies are parts of Gospels written for different parts of the church, Matthew to jewish converts & Luke to the non jewish church. Not that that really makes a difference.
Matthew was part of Jesus's inner circle so probably talked with Mary. Luke wrote a biot later and possibly interviewed the participants in the Gospel story.
Now was there a little embellishing ? Possibly. BUT doess it really matter ? The story is what we know .
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
I see no reason why the nativity accounts aren't historically accurate as long as we recognise that lots of traditional "details" are layered on interpretations/embellishments not originally there. E.g. The reference to an "inn" might really be a reference to the "guest room" in a single peasant dwelling.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I'm in that group that doesn't worry about the historicity of the details of the story. The fact to attend to is that God became human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth; the rest of the story tells us important things about him, whether or not they are factually accurate in the modern sense. And that's not to say I believe they're not historically accurate; to say it doesn't really matter is simply to not worry about it and to take the story as it's been handed down to us. Much of it is theological (e.g., the humble birth, the visit of the Gentile astrologers), much of it is to tie it in with prophecy (e.g., the genealogies, the census that gets Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem) - but it could all be factually, historically accurate as well. Or not. We can't know or prove it one way or the other, so clearly that's not the point of the stories. I'm more interested in listening to what they tell us about God (and God in Christ, in particular).
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
People often read more into the accounts than is actually there. Did Mary and Joseph travel alone, unaccompanied, to Bethlehem? It doesn't say. How long were they there before Jesus was born? It doesn't say (other than at least 8 days). Was the birth attended by a midwife? It doesn't say. How long did they stay after the birth? It doesn't say.
The fact that the Biblical account is not complete is not a excuse for us to imagine details and then claim whatever we invented is Biblical.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
churchgeek quote:
I'm in that group that doesn't worry about the historicity of the details of the story.
Count me as one of those, too. Regarding genealogies, what I find intriguing is that Luke not only claims that Jesus owed half his genes to the Holy Spirit but that Adam is described as "the son of God". Jesus, then, is divine both in his heavenly and earthly nature.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Matthew was part of Jesus's inner circle so probably talked with Mary. Luke wrote a biot later and possibly interviewed the participants in the Gospel story.
Except it is the other way around, Luke has the angelic visit to Mary, Mary's visit to Elizabeth, etc.
Matthew's events centre on Joseph. Joseph want's to break off the engagement, and is told not to. It's because of Joseph that they go to Bethlehem, and Joseph has the dreams which say go to, or come back from, Egypt. Matthew's Gospel, written for Jews, has Joseph in the roll of an Old Testament prophet - this is significant.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
IMO the nativity accounts in Matt and Luke come in the category of Midrash.
I do not subscribe to the literal details
They are theology not history.
I subscribe to the theology
[ 30. November 2013, 20:24: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
E.g. The reference to an "inn" might really be a reference to the "guest room" in a single peasant dwelling.
The word Luke uses for "inn" in the birth accounts is the same one translated "upper room" for the last supper.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
I read Reza Aslan's Zealot recently, and was not very surprised to find that he considered there was nothing to support the traditional nativity story, nor very much else in the life of Jesus, for that matter. It doesn't bother me. I enjoy the story and I love the music that has grown up around it, and which has helped to mark the spot where our church began in the Christian belief. That is the value of storytelling. How and where Jesus was born doesn't matter very much, and no matter what you read, the historical evidence isn't there. What does matter to me is that Jesus was born and that our troublesome old church came into being because of that fact. That's what I'll be singing about tomorrow morning.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The Nativity stories are theological reflections on the Christ event. They are not history as we think of.
Matthew sees Jesus as King, so he has the Wise Men acknowledging Christ as King. He also emphasizes Jesus as the New Moses, so the Flight of Egypt story and the massacre of the Bethlehem innocents reflect the story of Moses as a child being rescued from Pharaoh.
Luke sees Jesus as the universal Savior with a special attention to the poor and marginalized. The angelic announcement of his birth is meant to be a parody of the announcement of the birth of the Roman Caesar. Jesus is the true Lord as opposed to Caesar, and so it is the angels of the one true God who announce his nativity. The Shepherds represent the poor and marginalized who are the first to hear the good news.
The Nativity stories are mythical, but myth can convey truth.
The meaning of Christmas is the Incarnation. The important thing is the fact that He was born among us. Everything else is icing on the cake.
[ 30. November 2013, 20:30: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
People often read more into the accounts than is actually there. Did Mary and Joseph travel alone, unaccompanied, to Bethlehem? It doesn't say. How long were they there before Jesus was born? It doesn't say (other than at least 8 days). Was the birth attended by a midwife? It doesn't say. How long did they stay after the birth? It doesn't say.
The fact that the Biblical account is not complete is not a excuse for us to imagine details and then claim whatever we invented is Biblical.
Well they do contradict each other. Matthew doesn't have Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth until after the birth (they don't return to Judea after Egypt only because Herod's son is ruling there). Luke has them starting in Nazareth and going to Bethlehem where Jesus was born then going to Jerusalem for Mary's purification (40 days after) and then returning to Nazareth. Mark and John say nothing about Bethlehem. Well John does have 7:42 where some people are saying Jesus can't be the Messiah because he doesn't come from Bethlehem.
Probably the only accurate bits are that his parents are Mary and Joseph and that he was raised in Nazareth.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
IMO the nativity accounts in Matt and Luke come in the category of Midrash.
I do not subscribe to the literal details
They are theology not history.
I subscribe to the theology
Why do you have an Incarnation then if the event is not useful or literal.
Surely God can love us without becoming an event - which is what you're suggesting. If God did become a man then I fail to see why there should not be an account of his birth.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Net Spinster: quote:
Well they do contradict each other.
Matthew doesn't say where the first bit of the story started. It could have been at Nazareth. Who knows? Just because it seems sensible to us to include the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem if it happened that way, this doesn't mean there is necessarily a contradiction. The accounts could just have information that don't overlap.
But actually I'm with churchgeek on this. The story is spiritually true for me whatever the "facts". And I definitely believe in the Incarnation.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Any author with half an ounce of skill is going to pick and choose from the raw data in order to highlight the emphasis he has in mind. Matthew is painting a considerably darker picture than Luke, has more interest in things Jewish, and less perhaps in women and other marginalized people; and so naturally he highlights the Jewish prophecies, the homicidal king, the escape to Egypt (which parallels Israel's own time there). Luke picks up the more joyful and domestic stuff, and spotlights women, the elderly, and lowly shepherds.
I could do the same with the story of my own son's birth. If I were talking to a group of pregnant women, you can bet I'd highlight certain aspects (mainly the hopeful and comforting ones!), while if I were talking to a group of people who had experienced loss and disability, I'd focus more on the twin we lost, the various complications, and so forth.
Believe me, you'd never recognize the two stories as the same.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
People often read more into the accounts than is actually there. Did Mary and Joseph travel alone, unaccompanied, to Bethlehem? It doesn't say. How long were they there before Jesus was born? It doesn't say (other than at least 8 days). Was the birth attended by a midwife? It doesn't say. How long did they stay after the birth? It doesn't say.
The fact that the Biblical account is not complete is not a excuse for us to imagine details and then claim whatever we invented is Biblical.
If the Romans wanted everyone to return to the place of their forefathers, then all of David's descendants would have been going too. Dozens and hundreds together.
I'm firmly with Shamwari.
Most major figures of the period had elements similar to the Jesus story to explain their own origin and importance.
Myth has its place. The gospels are Good News, with elements of history, biography, sermons and journalism.
GG
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
There was some years ago a religion editor on one of the New York papers when asked about the contradictions of the Gospels answered " If I sent 4 writers out to cover 1 story and the came back with accounts that were as harmonous as the Gospels I would be an happy editor."
So I would suggest that aparant contradictions i.e. the journey to Egypt in 1 but not elsewhere is a case of some writers did not get all the facts. But the 4 in concert give us THE picture of the life & ministry of Christ.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
IMO the nativity accounts in Matt and Luke come in the category of Midrash.
I do not subscribe to the literal details
They are theology not history.
I subscribe to the theology
Why do you have an Incarnation then if the event is not useful or literal.
Surely God can love us without becoming an event - which is what you're suggesting. If God did become a man then I fail to see why there should not be an account of his birth.
No one is denying that Jesus wasn't born.
For some of us, however, the birth narratives were written by faithful Christians weaving their imagination to understand their Saviour and the impact he had on them. Historicity is not the same as truth.
The need for the birth narratives to be historical arises from a very modern understanding that historicity is equated to truth. However, religious truth can be conveyed in multiple ways, through myth, poetry, legend and literature.
God the Holy Spirit doesn't need the modern insistence on historical accuracy to convey Her truth.
[ 01. December 2013, 03:00: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Net Spinster: quote:
Well they do contradict each other.
Matthew doesn't say where the first bit of the story started. It could have been at Nazareth. Who knows? Just because it seems sensible to us to include the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem if it happened that way, this doesn't mean there is necessarily a contradiction. The accounts could just have information that don't overlap.
But actually I'm with churchgeek on this. The story is spiritually true for me whatever the "facts". And I definitely believe in the Incarnation.
If they originally came from Nazareth why give the reason Matthew did for not going to Judea after returning from Egypt. Joseph had no reason to return to Judea if his home was already Nazareth. Nor reconcile the Egypt trip with Luke having them going to Jerusalem and then home to Nazareth 40 days after the birth.
"22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
If they originally came from Nazareth why give the reason Matthew did for not going to Judea after returning from Egypt. Joseph had no reason to return to Judea if his home was already Nazareth.
It's really not hard to fill in the gaps. Judging by when the Wise Dudes arrived and the ages of the Holy Innocents slaughtered by Herod, the Holy Family lived in Judea for about 2 years after Jesus was born. Joseph must have found work there, and they must have found a place to live. It's understandable that they might have tried to move back to Judea first, and when that didn't work, they fell back to Joe's old stomping grounds up north.
Not saying this happened, or indeed that this isn't fanciful. Just saying that you haven't uncovered a contradiction, just an anomaly that requires explanation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
This "discussion of Biblical passages and themes" appears to be most "invigorating" - so it's going over to the Kerygmania board where it belongs. To find it, just follow the star.
/hosting
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
This "discussion of Biblical passages and themes" appears to be most "invigorating" - so it's going over to the Kerygmania board where it belongs. To find it, just follow the star.
/hosting
What star?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Thanks Eutychus, sorry for starting it in the wrong place.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The Nativity stories are theological reflections on the Christ event. They are not history as we think of.
Matthew sees Jesus as King, so he has the Wise Men acknowledging Christ as King. He also emphasizes Jesus as the New Moses, so the Flight of Egypt story and the massacre of the Bethlehem innocents reflect the story of Moses as a child being rescued from Pharaoh.
Luke sees Jesus as the universal Savior with a special attention to the poor and marginalized. The angelic announcement of his birth is meant to be a parody of the announcement of the birth of the Roman Caesar. Jesus is the true Lord as opposed to Caesar, and so it is the angels of the one true God who announce his nativity. The Shepherds represent the poor and marginalized who are the first to hear the good news.
The Nativity stories are mythical, but myth can convey truth.
The meaning of Christmas is the Incarnation. The important thing is the fact that He was born among us. Everything else is icing on the cake.
I find this interesting. If they are purely myth, then they're obviously there to make strong points. In that case, it's facinating the details that the evangelists would choose to add. As I said earlier, for me those details suggest historicity, but it's interesting to see them presented as theological reflections. Do you think those reflections would have been obvious to the readers / hearers of the stories at the time?
I also fall into the "it doesn't matter" category, but I tend to see a lot more myth in the OT, and the NT as much, much more historical. However, if there is more myth in the NT than I think, then it would be interesting to see how the orgininal recipients saw it.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.
That's really interesting I would've considered these details to be very true to the situation. Surely Bethlehem would've had lots of pasture land nearby (common for an agricultural community) - though the definition of "nearby" doesn't necessarily mean a short walk. The account in Luke 2 gives no indication how long it took the shepherds to find Jesus so it could've been some distance (coupled with a search through the village). Also my understanding was that shepherds in Palestine at that time pretty much had to guard their flocks 24x7. Them "watching" their sheep means guarding. So they weren't necessarily awake (maybe sleeping in shifts?) anyway to me this seems very true to life at the time - no need to interpret them poetically. Can you explain more why you think they are problematic?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
If any sort of mystical or magical appearances occurred in relation to the birth of Jesus, why was he allowed to grow up in total obscurity?
I can't imagine any village which would forget the appearance of strange foreigners with gifts, or angelic hosts singing in the sky.
But, apart from one incident when he was 12, there is no indication of the awe or bullying or whatever that would have marked his life for thirty years.
You'd think that the slaughter of so many babies would have left the village wondering why Jesus managed to escape.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Most versions of the Nativity Story that were told to me in Sunday School as a child said that the shepherds were some kind of outcast, and that they perhaps preferred to stay outside of the city gates (even when close to it) because they would be looked down upon inside them. Not sure how much romanticism is involved here.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
Don't know if this belongs here or under daft things clergy say, but one Christmas preacher declared that Luke's account is the most accurate because Luke the Physician was in fact Mary's Gynacologist.....
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
This "discussion of Biblical passages and themes" appears to be most "invigorating" - so it's going over to the Kerygmania board where it belongs. To find it, just follow the star.
/hosting
What star?
I went to the recording of a Radio 2 programme called Follow the Star this time last year, which discussed the options for the star of Bethlehem. They came to the conclusion that it was the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn within certain auspicious constellations, which happened three times in 7BC. This was mostly proposed by Professor David Hughes (apologies, tinyurl as the wiki entry has parentheses).
(A similar argument was used in Blue Stockings as a demonstration of a woman student's erudition, which I suspect is based on research, but my programme notes don't tell me.)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
If the Romans wanted everyone to return to the place of their forefathers, then all of David's descendants would have been going too. Dozens and hundreds together.
It seems clear that there was not a very widespread census at the time. There is a thread about this in Limbo. I am not convinced, however, that there was no census at all.
The KJV says, "that all the world should be taxed". I consider "all the world" to be on a par with a modern statement, "Everyone is talking about that movie." This kind of exaggeration is common human usage; it does not mean there is no underlying truth.
Moo
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
Don't know if this belongs here or under daft things clergy say, but one Christmas preacher declared that Luke's account is the most accurate because Luke the Physician was in fact Mary's Gynacologist.....
If so, he was not only a skilled gynacologist but pretty good at preserving life (his own) if he was still vigorous enough to be knocking around with Paul on his missionary journeys in the 60s, then.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
I find this interesting. If they are purely myth, then they're obviously there to make strong points. In that case, it's facinating the details that the evangelists would choose to add. As I said earlier, for me those details suggest historicity, but it's interesting to see them presented as theological reflections. Do you think those reflections would have been obvious to the readers / hearers of the stories at the time?
The Evangelists who wrote the Gospels for their audiences would have been aware of their locations and contexts. In the same way that I believe that the audience who read Revelation would have concluded that St John the Divine meant "Beast in Chapter 13 equals to imperial Rome", I think the audiences would have caught the symbols in the Infancy Narratives.
If the Nativity stories originated at sources circulating before Matthew and Luke penned them down, then it is the Christian communities who started proclaiming them. I don't think the communities engaged in historical method to find out what "really happened" the way we moderns might do. Someone probably asked "How was he born?" And others answered weaving myth and history together (the history being that Jesus's parents were Mary and Joseph and Jesus was raised in Nazareth). Prophecy was also brought in as the communities, Matthew's in particular, would at least had a sizable Jewish-Christian population which would be familiar with the OT prophecies of the Messiah. So, like much of Scripture, the writers and/or communities composed great stories weaving, history, imagination, and prophecy together.
To ask about historicity is to miss the point. The point of these stories is to convey meaning.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I seriously doubt that Mary had a gynecologist. If there were no problems with a pregnancy, women in those days probably did not consult doctors. When the birth took place, there was a midwife who had experience assisting at births.
Moo
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
For me, the creeds tell me what I have to believe actually happened. When we turn to the nativity stories, that would be, then: the Virgin Birth, mother's name was some variant on Miryam. With my sober historian hat on, I'd give very strong probabalistic credence to anything that's double tradition given how unconnected the stories seem to be. That would be:
-- Legal father's name was Joseph, the husband of Mary.
-- The couple was a pious Jewish couple.
-- Baby was born in Bethlehem, but the child grew up in Nazareth (I wouldn't want to speculate on reasons for the move).
Beyond that, I would view the remaining historically questions as beyond answering to any reasonable degree of probability. The much more interesting question in any regard is what christological truths the evangelists were seeking to convey through them.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I would have expected Hart to recommend Raymond Brown's 'The Birth of the Messiah'.
Great stuff.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(I mean, it is 'nearly' Christmas!)
The band 'Slade' is on pretty every store in town and, yes, it's time for the nativity thread!
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
...if I was to make up birth stories to big someone up, they probably wouldn't look like those we read.
I suspect if Matthew and crew were to make up a nativity story, too, they wouldn't have ended up with the versions in their Gospels.
I am happy to take a much more confident stance on the ability of the writers to write history and theology - eating the cake and still having it. I remain healthily skeptical of skepticism!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The kataluma was not in a panocheion - pub. It was the temporary guest room (a 'loose[n] down', a 'demolishable') on top of Joseph's kinsman's house for Sukkoth, Jesus being quite possibly and most symbolically born Trumpets-Atonement-Tabernacles.
The star was an angel or another epiphany just for the Magi, no astronomical phenomenon could have led to Bethlehem, nobody else saw it.
As for the genealogies, what Wiki says.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
If they originally came from Nazareth why give the reason Matthew did for not going to Judea after returning from Egypt. Joseph had no reason to return to Judea if his home was already Nazareth.
It's really not hard to fill in the gaps. Judging by when the Wise Dudes arrived and the ages of the Holy Innocents slaughtered by Herod, the Holy Family lived in Judea for about 2 years after Jesus was born. Joseph must have found work there, and they must have found a place to live. It's understandable that they might have tried to move back to Judea first, and when that didn't work, they fell back to Joe's old stomping grounds up north.
Not saying this happened, or indeed that this isn't fanciful. Just saying that you haven't uncovered a contradiction, just an anomaly that requires explanation.
Except Luke has in 2
22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”, 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”
then the stories of Simeon and Anna then
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
Nothing about returning to Bethlehem first or a side trip to Egypt.
Following up on Hart I would disagree on born in Bethlehem despite the double tradition because there was a strong prior tradition (as indicated in John) that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem and so a strong reason to say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Note John despite mentioning the tradition doesn't say Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Martin PC quote:
The star was an angel or another epiphany just for the Magi, no astronomical phenomenon could have led to Bethlehem, nobody else saw it.
Martin PC, regarding the authenticity of the Star of Bethlehem it is instructive to note that St John Chrysostom (d.407 AD) was something of a sceptic. See <www.anastasis.org.uk/Star of Bethlehem.htm>
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.
If it was lambing season, you'd darn better be watching your flocks by night, as some of them may need help. Which is why a lot of people put the birth of Christ during lambing season.
As for the location, Bethlehem is what, a couple miles from Jerusalem? Pretty major city, with a temple needing continual sheep sacrifices, not to speak of ordinary uses for sheep. So the sheep could very well have belonged to people in either Jerusalem or Bethlehem, and the distances involved in either case are not surprising. In such a country you'd need to keep your sheep on the move fairly often so as not to graze what pasture you found all the way down to the roots. The distance, short or far, means little. Except that if it were lambing season, you probably WOULD choose to keep your flock a bit closer to home, in case of need. The grass would be up to it, too, with the rainy season just over.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If any sort of mystical or magical appearances occurred in relation to the birth of Jesus, why was he allowed to grow up in total obscurity?
I can't imagine any village which would forget the appearance of strange foreigners with gifts, or angelic hosts singing in the sky.
But, apart from one incident when he was 12, there is no indication of the awe or bullying or whatever that would have marked his life for thirty years.
You'd think that the slaughter of so many babies would have left the village wondering why Jesus managed to escape.
I'm sorry, you're bringing out the geek in me-- ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
First of all, the two incidents (angels singing / wise men coming) were probably separated by about two years, as someone upthread pointed out. With regards to the angels singing, we are told they appeared to the shepherds, but not how far away they were from populated areas--and it was night. The later the hour, the less likely that anyone BUT the shepherds would be awake to witness anything. No electric lights, exciting nightlife, etc. in those days. You might get the occasional mother with a sick child or someone putting the last few stitches in a wedding dress or shroud. But really, it's not too surprising, even if the whole thing happened only a quarter of a mile outside the village.
Re the appearance of strangers with gifts--I've no doubt the strangers were noticed and eagerly speculated on (though whether any locals got to witness the gift presentation is unclear--they were inside a house at that point, and houses in those days were not exactly big. And I doubt Mary and Joseph were eager to spread the details ("Hey, Martha, you'll never guess what's under my pillow for safekeeping! Don't tell the local thieves, will you?" Uh no.)
And for both parents and village, the whole visit would have been swamped in the terror of the massacre that followed so quickly afterward. Remember, Jerusalem is only a couple miles away... Herod probably didn't wait long before concluding that the wise men weren't coming back, and it was time to move. And AFTER the massacre, who's going to be talking about the strange visitors? New news pushes out old. And they wouldn't have known the two events were connected.
Nor, most likely, would they have realized that Jesus escaped death. They would notice the young family had disappeared over night, and a few kindly-hearted people might hope it meant they'd gotten wind of the soldiers in time and made a run for it successfully--but it could just as easily mean that Herod's forces had "disappeared" them (Are you going to go and ask the authorities? no, didn't think so) or that after their baby was killed, Joseph and Mary were so upset that they upped anchor and headed back to their original home of Nazareth--far, far away from the soldiers in Jerusalem. Either would be logical assumptions.
I grant you, if Mary and Joseph had succeeded in resettling themselves in Bethlehem a few years later, questions would have been raised. For one thing, they would have had the only boy of Jesus' age in the village, all the rest having been killed. Perhaps this is why God directed them in that dream NOT to return to Judea--their return would have been too conspicuous, the news might have spread, and Archelaus was his father's son when it came to cruelty. Better to go back where nobody would be likely to connect the child Jesus to the massacre a few years back seventy miles away, or to have heard of any of the odd events surrounding his birth and early childhood.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Net Spinster, I don't think the passage
quote:
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
will bear the weight you put on it. There's a lot of wiggle room in that "when ... they returned" construction.
First of all, they almost certainly went back to Bethlehem even if we throw out the whole massacre/flight into Egypt story, because they'd have had to pack their stuff--and nobody brings all the family possessions along to the baby's presentation ceremony. In the same way, nobody with options chooses to travel long distances with a 40-day-old infant and a mother not long past childbirth. I mean, yeouch. Particularly on foot (though I can't imagine a donkey, if they had one, was much more comfortable.)
There's also the possibility that they might have been dealing with nosy neighbors counting on their fingers. Mary was obviously pregnant soon after the wedding. Nazareth would be a very unusual place indeed if the local busybodies had no interest in the baby's birthdate. Return to Nazareth with an obvious newborn and you're screwed. Pick up work in Bethlehem, find a temporary house, stay a couple years--eh, is that kid two and a half, or three? Hard to tell, isn't it?
They may have been above such concerns, but I wouldn't have been.
So all things considered, I expect there was some time elapsed between the presentation and the return to Nazareth. But we often condense or leave out events we don't consider germane to the story we're telling, and I think Luke did that here.
[ 01. December 2013, 18:07: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Loving your posts LC. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Loving your posts LC.
Lamb Chopped is my SOF biblical scholar par excellence.
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's really not hard to fill in the gaps. (etc)
Except Luke has in 2 (etc)
I didn't try to reconcile that because you hadn't mentioned it. I don't want to play a leapfrog game where I say something and you come back with, "Oh yeah? Well what about...."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.
That's really interesting I would've considered these details to be very true to the situation. Surely Bethlehem would've had lots of pasture land nearby (common for an agricultural community) - though the definition of "nearby" doesn't necessarily mean a short walk. The account in Luke 2 gives no indication how long it took the shepherds to find Jesus so it could've been some distance (coupled with a search through the village). Also my understanding was that shepherds in Palestine at that time pretty much had to guard their flocks 24x7. Them "watching" their sheep means guarding. So they weren't necessarily awake (maybe sleeping in shifts?) anyway to me this seems very true to life at the time - no need to interpret them poetically. Can you explain more why you think they are problematic?
Sorry for the late reply - I had somehow missed your post. Certainly watched meant guarded, and even with several flocks together, more than one would have been awake. 25 December is winter in Israel, and even though it's warmer there that much of Italy even, it's still quite cold at night. I've always doubted that the sheep were herded over far pasture in that sort of climate, and they they were returned to sheds and stables overnight. Summer was of course much different.
"For unto you is born this day in the city of David…" I wonder how large Bethlehem really was. Did it have the title of city because of its being that of David, and that the title was an honorific? That may well be true, but I stop at your reference to a village and think that might not be quite right either.
Yes, we don't know how long they walked. When they arrived at the stable, Mary was awake, so perhaps they had taken long enough for her to have had a sleep after the ordeal of birth. The usual paintings have the shepherds on a hillside with Bethlehem not far away.
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on
:
Just got back from a Holy Land pilgrimage last month and its all about caves:
Cave used to coral sheep at night for safety with shepherd's sitting around fires at the opening to keep the sheep in and predators out
Series of caves used as temporary accommodation for influx of travellers. Mary taken deeper to a secluded cave for privacy during Labour and birth by fellow women travellers. Joseph left pacing about in cave nearer entrance - probably chain smoking!
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Certainly watched meant guarded, and even with several flocks together, more than one would have been awake. 25 December is winter in Israel, and even though it's warmer there that much of Italy even, it's still quite cold at night. I've always doubted that the sheep were herded over far pasture in that sort of climate, and they they were returned to sheds and stables overnight. Summer was of course much different.
"For unto you is born this day in the city of David…" I wonder how large Bethlehem really was. Did it have the title of city because of its being that of David, and that the title was an honorific? That may well be true, but I stop at your reference to a village and think that might not be quite right either.
Yes, we don't know how long they walked. When they arrived at the stable, Mary was awake, so perhaps they had taken long enough for her to have had a sleep after the ordeal of birth. The usual paintings have the shepherds on a hillside with Bethlehem not far away.
Thanks.
Yes I totally agree with you about the summer/winter thing. But for me that doesn't mean that the details in the Bible story are incorrect it means that the traditional date for Christ's birth (which has no scriptural support whatsoever) is the thing that is wrong. As someone mentioned up thread it is more likely to have been in the summer months, in other words your celebration of Christmas in Australia in the summer (for you) is probably more accurate than for those of us in the northern hemisphere ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Also you are right to pull me up on the village thing. In comparison to Jerusalem Bethlehem would've been much smaller I imagine but to be called a city it would need to have been big enough to have a protective wall around it.
Again, paintings have a level of interpretation - Bethlehem could be shown nearby for artistic reasons to get the story across rather than because the is any literal connection with location.
Anyway I am not sure we are disagreeing. For me I am happy to believe the details that are actually in the gospel accounts. Actually though these details are very, very sparse and the gaps have been filled with traditional "details" that are not there in the original and it's those that I question.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Giving Jesus David as an ancestor through Joseph, right?
How does that work when Joseph, isn't, erm, well....
There's always a dnager of reading our own understanding into an ancient text. We know about genetic hereditary transmission and so we assume that's how first century Jews understood it. Kwesi mentions genes also, which is part of this anachronistic way of understanding ancestry.
AIUI for Jews it was not the trnasmission of genes that mattered and made you belong to a certain tribe, or family. It was something far more subtle and more real. You became a Jew not just by being born a Jew, but by being circumcised and being a part of the community, following the law. A Jew who wasn't circumcised and didn't follow the law was not really a Jew at all. Being a member of a tribe and a family was about being part of it, sharing identity, not just sharing genes. Part of it is the rituals surrounding marraige, circumcision, and coming of age, which signify acceptance into the community, part of it is how one lives their life.
Belonging to Joseph's family, and sharing in his ancestry was perfectly allowed in Jewish understanding even for someone who wasn't (as we would understand it) directly related to him genetically. Indeed, Jesus didn't physically share any of the genes of the Holy Spirit either (since it doesn't have any) but is still just as legitimately the Son of God as he is the Son of Joseph.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Jammy Dodger wrote: quote:
Also you are right to pull me up on the village thing. In comparison to Jerusalem Bethlehem would've been much smaller I imagine but to be called a city it would need to have been big enough to have a protective wall around it.
AIUI, that's exactly what the word polis means - a walled (or fortified) community. Or in other words, it's a description of the sort of place, not its size.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Hawk quote:
There's always a dnager of reading our own understanding into an ancient text. We know about genetic hereditary transmission and so we assume that's how first century Jews understood it. Kwesi mentions genes also, which is part of this anachronistic way of understanding ancestry.
Of course, you are perfectly right, though I was aware of my solecism at the time of posting. Perhaps I should have put "genes" etc. in inverted commas. You remind us, too, of the general point that genealogies are not so value free as is often assumed, which is what makes them so instructive. I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!
AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.
Moo
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
There are bits and pieces in tradition that reflect the female line. Actually some is Biblical, as Zechariah is a Priest, therefore by the law he had to marry a Levite. So we can assume Elizabeth was a Levite, and as she was a cousin to Mary then there is a good chance Mary was too. What tradition adds is to make Elizabeth and Mary from Priestly stock as well. So that Jesus thus is of the Priestly lineage. That there is no biblical evidence for as far as I can recall.
Jengie
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm not aware of any requirement that a priest marry a Levite. Perhaps you are thinking of the high priest, who had to marry "a virgin of his own people." But that applied only to him and "own people" meant AFAIK an Israelite. Aaron himself married a Judahite, Elisheba. So while there could have been priestly lineage on the maternal side, however far back, there is no need to believe Elizabeth (much less Mary) was herself born to the tribe of Levi.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
Zechariah as a priest was not restricted to marrying only a Levite; however, Luke does state his wife was also of the line of Aaron and so a daughter of a priest. The Talmud expands that a priest had to marry a woman who born Jewish and not a convert (and not a mamzer and not a divorced woman). If he were high priest or wanted to be, his wife had to be a virgin at the wedding (not a widow).
Also is there any evidence that adoption existed in Jewish culture and law of that time (as opposed to fostering or Roman law which did have adoption). Talmudic law which was written down a bit later does not have adoption in the modern sense though encourages fostering of children whose parents can't raise them. One's original parents remain the parents though one also has obligations to one's foster parents. You remained of the lineage of your biological father (and lineage was only through the paternal line). Even though at some time (by the time the Talmud was written down) it was established that to be Jewish your mother must be Jewish or you had to formally convert.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!
AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.
I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. People who bred animals for a living couldn't be so stupid as to not note that offspring inherit properties of the mother.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!
AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.
I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. People who bred animals for a living couldn't be so stupid as to not note that offspring inherit properties of the mother.
It seems to have been a debated issue. Aristotle's followers favored men providing the seed and women the material while Galen who wrote in the 2nd century CE saw both sexes providing seed (http://www.iep.utm.edu/galen/).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!
AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.
I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. People who bred animals for a living couldn't be so stupid as to not note that offspring inherit properties of the mother.
It seems to have been a debated issue. Aristotle's followers favored men providing the seed and women the material while Galen who wrote in the 2nd century CE saw both sexes providing seed (http://www.iep.utm.edu/galen/).
Somewhere online there is or was a scholarly article which examines this issue in antiquity. I can't immediately find it but will look again. But broadly I think you are right.
I seem to recall that there are a number of extra-biblical sources which point to Jewish belief in this period following the "both sexes provide seed" model. And in fact that is exactly what Hebrews 11:11 says in the original Greek (where Sarah "received the power to conceive seed"). Though don't bother looking it up in the NIV where the translation is hopelessly mangled.
Quoting from memory again, I seem to recall that Aristotle's view was that both sexes contributed, but the woman's contribution was in the blood which carried life. Or something like that. Though I have from time to time seen "the Aristotelian view" being reported as that the woman was just an incubator (as Moo says) which I don't think is right.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Still looking, but the article appears as a chapter in "Hellenism, Judaism & Christianity - Essays on their Interaction" by P. W. van der Horst. The article is entitled "Sarah's Seminal Emission. Hebrews 11.11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology" and it starts on p 221.
Google Books has a version online (here) though unfortunately it doesn't have every single page available; enough though to be able to follow the argument about different views on this matter.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Was Aristotle a breeder of cattle? Aristotle said a lot of things he had no evidence for. He was not a scientist.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I'm not aware of it if so mousethief. I only mentioned it in passing because I've seen two different views ascribed to him.
On a slightly different tack, the almost universal use of "seed" in a reproductive context is interesting. In many plants it is obvious that the unfertilised embryo is associated with the female part of the plant rather than the pollen. It's easy to say "they wouldn't have made that connection", but does the use of the vegetative analogy not argue against that?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Aristotle was a lot nearer to being a scientist than most of the Greek philosophers. Made some very sensible observations and experiments on fish, for example. Based his ideas of natural history on the real world.
From a biologists point of view Aristotle is a sort of intellectual great-uncle of modern science. The exact opposite of Plato, whose ideas are inimical to science and need to be utterly rejected before we can think clearly about the natural world.
From a biologists point of view, of course. Physicists may differ.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
From a biologists point of view Aristotle is a sort of intellectual great-uncle of modern science. The exact opposite of Plato, whose ideas are inimical to science and need to be utterly rejected before we can think clearly about the natural world.
From a biologists point of view, of course. Physicists may differ.
Fair enough. I've not studied his biology, only his physics.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
In one of Isaac Asimov's essays he commented that he almost always had to start by explaining what the Greeks (meaning Aristotle) believed on a topic and then how they were mistaken.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In one of Isaac Asimov's essays he commented that he almost always had to start by explaining what the Greeks (meaning Aristotle) believed on a topic and then how they were mistaken.
It's always worth remembering that by 4400AD everyone will be saying exactly that about us.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are bits and pieces in tradition that reflect the female line. Actually some is Biblical, as Zechariah is a Priest, therefore by the law he had to marry a Levite. So we can assume Elizabeth was a Levite, and as she was a cousin to Mary then there is a good chance Mary was too. What tradition adds is to make Elizabeth and Mary from Priestly stock as well. So that Jesus thus is of the Priestly lineage. That there is no biblical evidence for as far as I can recall.
Jengie
Not only is there no Biblical evidence in favour, there is evidence strongly to the contrary in Hebrews chapter 7, which explains that Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek, not of the order of Aaron. (See esp. 7:13-14.)
Addressing the general subject of the thread, I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel. It seems to me to be insupportable haughty arrogance to suggest that anyone distanced from the events by 2000 years knows better than a contemporary writer.
Angus
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nah, Joseph had bottle. He went home with his family.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
The birth narrative passages were used by Matthew and Luke to bridge the gap between the sudden appearance of Jesus in Mark's gospel (which they were rewriting) and the Old Testament text (and contemporary messianic expectations derived from it).
Matthew is more explicit about this with his direct quotes from the OT, while Luke prefers subtle allusions to OT characters (primarily the Samuel birth story).
Bottom line, Mark, John, and Paul's letters prove that the gospel does not require the birth narrative as a preface.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
We don't have a Pauline gospel.
(edited to add - No, I realised you didn't claim we did, but drawing conclusions from Paul's letters, which are mostly issue-driven. is an argument from silence).
[ 13. December 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are bits and pieces in tradition that reflect the female line. Actually some is Biblical, as Zechariah is a Priest, therefore by the law he had to marry a Levite. So we can assume Elizabeth was a Levite, and as she was a cousin to Mary then there is a good chance Mary was too. What tradition adds is to make Elizabeth and Mary from Priestly stock as well. So that Jesus thus is of the Priestly lineage. That there is no biblical evidence for as far as I can recall.
Jengie
Not only is there no Biblical evidence in favour, there is evidence strongly to the contrary in Hebrews chapter 7, which explains that Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek, not of the order of Aaron. (See esp. 7:13-14.)
Addressing the general subject of the thread, I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel. It seems to me to be insupportable haughty arrogance to suggest that anyone distanced from the events by 2000 years knows better than a contemporary writer.
Angus
Not really priestly lineage went down the father's line and Joseph was from the tribe of Judah so Jesus was not priestly even if his mother was.
Just as the evidence for Aaron does not count as he was married before the rule was made!
I still think that Lamb Chopped is right.
Jengie
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Addressing the general subject of the thread, I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel. It seems to me to be insupportable haughty arrogance to suggest that anyone distanced from the events by 2000 years knows better than a contemporary writer.
Depends on the contemporary writer, doesn't it? For example the Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut claimed to have driven the Hyksos from Egypt despite the fact that it happened some years prior to her reign. The whole thing is rather akin to Mr Cameron putting up statues to himself across London with claims that he had personally seen off the Third Reich. Or, if you want an example that is nearly contemporaneous with Jesus, you would not get far with a classicist by citing Suetonius as your sole source for an event during the early Principate.
Contemporary writers get things wrong. Sometimes posterity is able to correct them. Sometimes we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes they are triumphantly vindicated. I believe in the Virgin Birth and Mary and Joseph fetching up in Bethlehem but I don't think that Luke and Matthew writing sixty to eighty odd years after the event trumps any critical objections that can be levelled in 2013, per se.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I see no reason why the nativity accounts aren't historically accurate as long as we recognise that lots of traditional "details" are layered on interpretations/embellishments not originally there. E.g. The reference to an "inn" might really be a reference to the "guest room" in a single peasant dwelling.
Well, the word 'inn' is not found in the Greek text. The greek word is κατάλυμα (kataluma), which can mean an inn, but which just means housing or shelter (probably in a private residence).
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, the word 'inn' is not found in the Greek text. The greek word is κατάλυμα (kataluma), which can mean an inn, but which just means housing or shelter (probably in a private residence).
This is the same word that is translated 'guest room' in Luke 22:11. quote:
...and say to the owner of the house, “The teacher asks you, ‘Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ”
Moo
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Plus, with Bethlehem being so close to Jerusalem and being so small, it's very unlikely there was a public inn there. AFAIK there's no historical / archaelogoical evidence of there being an inn there in the time of Jesus (or any time near it). I think a family guest room is much more likely, which in turn suggests there must have been a lot of other family staying there at the time for there to be no room upstairs, which makes you wonder what the circumstances were for Mary to be pregnant, yet made to sleep with the animals - a more pressing family need, or some rejection because of her pregnancy out of wedlock?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It's just as likely that we're talking about some random Bethlehem family who were taking people in for the census (whether for cash or kindness). Considering David's amatory prowess, half the country was probably related to him, and even direct descendants only would mean a heckuva lot of people descending upon a small town. Even if it was, as I expect, spread out over several weeks or more in time. (I remember the desperate appeals that went out for people to open their homes to people evacuated from Katrina--and what it was like near L.A. during the Olympics)
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
I find it not historically likely that a census would require Joseph et alia to go to Bethlehem in the first place as opposed to staying by his residence/workshop/land in Nazareth. The purpose of the census was taxation so authorities want the people next to any property they own (land, buildings, tools, animals) so as to properly evaluate their wealth (or skills if potentially part of the tax was to be in the form of a labor levy).
In addition when did the census take place? We have evidence from Josephus that a provincial census did take place under Quirinius but well after Herod the Great's death. It also led to a major revolt (for some reason people don't like taxes though there is also the Biblical injunction against censuses).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
AFAIK there's no historical / archaelogoical evidence of there being an inn there in the time of Jesus (or any time near it).
Why would you expect there to be any such evidence? It's not like we have the Yellow Pages for every podunk town in the Roman Empire for every year we're interested in. This is a really silly argument from silence.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I find it not historically likely that a census would require Joseph et alia to go to Bethlehem in the first place as opposed to staying by his residence/workshop/land in Nazareth. The purpose of the census was taxation so authorities want the people next to any property they own...
Luke believed Joseph to be a descendent of David in an unbroken male line. The story has Joseph going to Bethlehem to assert his place in the tribe of Judah.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Net Spinster wrote: quote:
I find it not historically likely that a census would require Joseph et alia to go to Bethlehem in the first place as opposed to staying by his residence/workshop/land in Nazareth. The purpose of the census was taxation so authorities want the people next to any property they own (land, buildings, tools, animals) so as to properly evaluate their wealth (or skills if potentially part of the tax was to be in the form of a labor levy).
Not this census (whatever that means), but interestingly we do have evidence of a census decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104AD which requires exactly the sort of thing that Luke reports.
Your latter paragraph - quote:
In addition when did the census take place? We have evidence from Josephus that a provincial census did take place under Quirinius but well after Herod the Great's death. It also led to a major revolt (for some reason people don't like taxes though there is also the Biblical injunction against censuses).
- has of course been hugely thrashed over by scholars of many persuasions on the basis of various 20th century archaeological discoveries. Exactly what they might imply is not entirely clear to me. But the standard critiques are mostly traceable to the summary of Emil Schurer from the end of the 19th century and are somewhat out of date now, though everyone still seems to quote them. If they do remain critiques they at least need refining in the light of the 20th century work.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Not this census (whatever that means), but interestingly we do have evidence of a census decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104AD which requires exactly the sort of thing that Luke reports.
Actually Gaius Vibius Maximus census supports the opposite. It requires those who are might be away from their homes to return to their legal homes and to busy themselves with cultivation. It makes an exception for those whose work in the city is needed. City workers not legally residing in the city were almost certainly single people whose parents are still on the family farm but who have temporarily moved to the city to find work and supplement the family income (since labor needs on a farm varied and during the Nile flood little could be done on most farms though some from large families or seeking a better life might leave a bit more permanently).
In addition this is Egypt which had a much higher level of bureaucracy than Palestine and whose agriculture was particularly important to the Roman Empire (without grain from Egypt, Rome would starve). The order might in part be made to force farmers who were seeking a better life in the cities back to farming.
It is not an order to return to the home area of some distant ancestor. Now one could make it work if Joseph's parents or elder brother still lived in Bethlehem and Joseph was a casual laborer and if the census took place when both Judea and Galilee were under Roman control and the same province (i.e., Herod the Great was already dead).
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
AFAIK there's no historical / archaelogoical evidence of there being an inn there in the time of Jesus (or any time near it).
Why would you expect there to be any such evidence? It's not like we have the Yellow Pages for every podunk town in the Roman Empire for every year we're interested in. This is a really silly argument from silence.
If I was saying "there's no evidence, so there can't have been an inn", then you would have a point, but I didn't say that. I didn't say there wasn't an inn, merely that it is unlikely (or at least when I read up on the topic a few years ago, that's the conclusion I came to), the main reasons being the size and location of Bethlehem, and the misinterpretation due to the translation of "upper room". Pointing out that there's no document from Josephus (or anyone else) saying "I stayed in this lovely inn in Bethlehem..." wasn't intended to be a positive argument, merely an aside pointing out the lack of a negative one. Most people assume there must have been an inn (or, as in many nativity plays, quite a few!) in Bethlehem. The reality is there probably wasn't one at all.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Not this census (whatever that means), but interestingly we do have evidence of a census decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104AD which requires exactly the sort of thing that Luke reports.
Actually Gaius Vibius Maximus census supports the opposite. It requires those who are might be away from their homes to return to their legal homes and to busy themselves with cultivation. It makes an exception for those whose work in the city is needed. City workers not legally residing in the city were almost certainly single people whose parents are still on the family farm but who have temporarily moved to the city to find work and supplement the family income (since labor needs on a farm varied and during the Nile flood little could be done on most farms though some from large families or seeking a better life might leave a bit more permanently).
In addition this is Egypt which had a much higher level of bureaucracy than Palestine and whose agriculture was particularly important to the Roman Empire (without grain from Egypt, Rome would starve). The order might in part be made to force farmers who were seeking a better life in the cities back to farming.
It is not an order to return to the home area of some distant ancestor. Now one could make it work if Joseph's parents or elder brother still lived in Bethlehem and Joseph was a casual laborer and if the census took place when both Judea and Galilee were under Roman control and the same province (i.e., Herod the Great was already dead).
Mmm... Perhaps I should expand that a little.
It is often said that Roman censuses don't normally require people to return to their place of birth. The census decrees don't, though another class of decree (the "Reintegration Edict") does. Strictly speaking, in both the cases here we have a double edict - a census and a reintegration edict. That's more what I was pointing towards.
There seems to be no fixed view on what reintegration edicts were used for, but some sort of control over migration is an obvious one. What is less clear is their connection with forthcoming census edicts. There seem to be varying views on that. But the standard form of a reintegration edict is to get people to return to their idia (which can be translated as home, but would probably be more accurately stated as homeland). In the GVM edict it stipulates to their hearth (home), which is presumably the implementation in that case. The implementation in other cases would - I assume - vary according to purpose.
Anyway, these are the sort of factors I meant. But as you say there are also differences.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
Does the biblical text actually say that Joseph was explicitly told by the authorities to go to Bethlehem?
quote:
Luke 2:3-5 (NRSV):
All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.
Facts we know:
1) Everyone had to go to "their own town".
2) Joseph's family had roots in Bethlehem.
3) Joseph (plus a pregnant Mary) went to Bethlehem.
If "their own town" actually meant "the town of their ancestors" at that time and in greek then I concede the point - someone who knows biblical greek can correct me. However, from the english it looks like Joseph could just as well have stayed in Nazareth as far as the Romans were concerned. It seems more likely to me that his motivation for the move was something to do with Mary's pregnancy, like LC was talking about upthread. He could marry Mary in Nazarath, leave town before her bump got too obvious, turn up in Bethlehem as a married man with a pregnant wife (i.e. perfectly normal, as long as he didn't let slip how recently they'd got married) and claim it as his hometown on the census because of his family roots there.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality is there probably wasn't one at all.
The reality is a probability. Not terribly convincing reality.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, the word 'inn' is not found in the Greek text. The greek word is κατάλυμα (kataluma), which can mean an inn, but which just means housing or shelter (probably in a private residence).
This is the same word that is translated 'guest room' in Luke 22:11. quote:
...and say to the owner of the house, “The teacher asks you, ‘Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ”
Moo
That is interesting, Moo.
I have read about excavations in that region of ancient houses constructed with a sort of open basement. This was a sort of lower level, partway below ground, that was open on one side so that animals could come and go as they pleased but would always have a place for shelter from the weather. The article (sorry, I do not remember the source) suggested that this might have been the type of "guest house" or "guest room" where Mary and Joseph found shelter, and would explain the presence of animals. I'm not convinced one way or another about this, but it's interesting to consider.
[ 16. December 2013, 02:07: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
goperryrevs I think there's some conflict between the first couple of your sentences and the last, which you might like to explain.
Jammy Dodger and I had a discussion upthread some days ago about Bethlehem, how big it was and so forth. It was a city, which means as a minimum it had a gated wall. That wall may have been of stone or wood, but it would still have been there. The fact that Bethlehem was important enough to warrant a wall suggests strongly to me that it had an inn as well. A place of safety where travellers could spend the night.
Moving a bit further along that line of thought, think back to the rather romanticised pictures of Bethlehem as a settlement amongst the hills. Since the earlier discussion, I've thought a bit more about this and come back to Bethlehem as being along the lines of Bree - a walled town with an inn, not large but still offering hospitality to travellers.
Then to go back to the lack of archeological evidence that there was an inn. I have zero knowledge of the area, but what sort of evidence would there be of an inn as opposed to a house? Any ideas welcome.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Since the earlier discussion, I've thought a bit more about this and come back to Bethlehem as being along the lines of Bree - a walled town with an inn, not large but still offering hospitality to travellers.
Then to go back to the lack of archeological evidence that there was an inn. I have zero knowledge of the area, but what sort of evidence would there be of an inn as opposed to a house? Any ideas welcome.
Of course, there's very little archeological evidence to support the fact that Bree had an inn or a wall, either.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel.
There are sufficient historical parallels to Luke's preface that one could make a convincing case that this was the kind of stock introduction one used when one was about to modify a series of existing stories.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The Romans don't care whether Joseph goes to Bethlehem or Nazareth or anywhere else. Joseph is asserting that he belongs to Bethlehem, or Luke is asserting it for him, as part of the claim to be in the family of David.
(or whoever wrote the nativity story that "Luke" included in the Gospel)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Is there any indication that Joseph was born and bred in Nazareth?
Why could he not have come to live in Nazareth at some time, having been born and brought up in Bethlehem? Would that explain why he was returning to his own town?
[ 16. December 2013, 13:52: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The Romans don't care whether Joseph goes to Bethlehem or Nazareth or anywhere else. Joseph is asserting that he belongs to Bethlehem, or Luke is asserting it for him, as part of the claim to be in the family of David.
(or whoever wrote the nativity story that "Luke" included in the Gospel)
Oh, I'm sure that's right about Luke's main point. It's just that Luke does seem to think there was something else going on which fortuitously fulfilled the need to be in Bethlehem. That's all this exploration is about really. He could easily have simply been mistaken as others have said. I just think it merits more probing than dismissing it as having been just made up out of thin air to make the point.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I totally reject the idea that any of the Gospels (with the possible exception of John) was written after AD70 and probably not after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. There is no reason to suggest that Luke wrote his Gospel in the early 60s just before he wrote Acts (which ends with Paul still alive btw).
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Mudfrog - quote:
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.
I agree with that. It's simply that there is the fact that first century Jewish writers were in the habit of embedding meaning within their narratives. Far from making things up, they were trying to explain it. But I don't think this sounds like one of those passages. The thing is that it's presently difficult to reconcile all the separate bits of his narrative if we take them at face value.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I totally reject the idea that any of the Gospels (with the possible exception of John) was written after AD70 and probably not after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. There is no reason to suggest that Luke wrote his Gospel in the early 60s just before he wrote Acts (which ends with Paul still alive btw).
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.
I'd agree with you for an earlyish date for the Synoptics and possibly for the first draft of John. Still, assuming Jesus was born in 4BC, sixty odd years is sufficient length of time for an oral tradition to become garbled.
Naturally one's mileage will vary but I would probably make a distinction between everything in the Synoptics subsequent to Jesus' Baptism on the one hand and the infancy narratives and John on the other. Which isn't to say that I reject the latter absolutely and even if, say, the visit of the Magi did turn out to be a Midrash it wouldn't follow from that that the story was without theological value. It's not the case that if the historical reliability of the Bible varies our faith is in vain.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I totally reject the idea that any of the Gospels (with the possible exception of John) was written after AD70 and probably not after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. There is no reason to suggest that Luke wrote his Gospel in the early 60s just before he wrote Acts (which ends with Paul still alive btw).
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.
I'd agree with you for an earlyish date for the Synoptics and possibly for the first draft of John. Still, assuming Jesus was born in 4BC, sixty odd years is sufficient length of time for an oral tradition to become garbled.
Naturally one's mileage will vary but I would probably make a distinction between everything in the Synoptics subsequent to Jesus' Baptism on the one hand and the infancy narratives and John on the other. Which isn't to say that I reject the latter absolutely and even if, say, the visit of the Magi did turn out to be a Midrash it wouldn't follow from that that the story was without theological value. It's not the case that if the historical reliability of the Bible varies our faith is in vain.
I think it is and our faith would be in vain. We have an incarnate God - it seems odd that the fact of his incarnation is basically myth and not 'real' human events. What's the point of being incarnate flesh if there's no real time basis to the story? Atheists have a field day with this stuff - they accuse us, with some justification, of not believing our own Bible.
[ 16. December 2013, 17:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it is and our faith would be in vain. We have an incarnate God - it seems odd that the fact of his incarnation is basically myth and not 'real' human events. What's the point of being incarnate flesh if there's no real time basis to the story? Atheists have a field day with this stuff - they accuse us, with some justification, of not believing our own Bible.
Well said, that man!
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
I didn't say that the fact of the incarnation was basically myth. I said that the account of the incarnation may involve mythological accretions. There is a subtle but important distinction.
Take, for example, the popular memory of the blitz. Apparently in 1940 everyone in London was bloody, bold and resolute for sticking it to the Hun. In fact you had politicians wondering about the possibility of a compromise peace, members of the public wondering if that old fart Churchill had what it took, people taking the opportunities presented by the blitz of ransacking peoples houses and so forth. Now all this was real enough at the time but I wouldn't advise you to hop into your TARDIS, set the controls for VE Day and wander round the pubs of London pointing this out.
I'm totally with you about the truth of God incarnate bit. I merely point out that the human condition involves mythologising stuff. We can't help it. It's what we do. The idea that you can have an incarnate God and no mythologising of his activities by his followers isn't incarnationalism. It's po-faced enlightenment rationalism masquerading as piety.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Well said Gildas
Pity that Mudfrog can't see the difference.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I totally reject the idea that any of the Gospels (with the possible exception of John) was written after AD70 and probably not after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. There is no reason to suggest that Luke wrote his Gospel in the early 60s just before he wrote Acts (which ends with Paul still alive btw).
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.
I'd agree with you for an earlyish date for the Synoptics and possibly for the first draft of John. Still, assuming Jesus was born in 4BC, sixty odd years is sufficient length of time for an oral tradition to become garbled.
Naturally one's mileage will vary but I would probably make a distinction between everything in the Synoptics subsequent to Jesus' Baptism on the one hand and the infancy narratives and John on the other. Which isn't to say that I reject the latter absolutely and even if, say, the visit of the Magi did turn out to be a Midrash it wouldn't follow from that that the story was without theological value. It's not the case that if the historical reliability of the Bible varies our faith is in vain.
I think it is and our faith would be in vain. We have an incarnate God - it seems odd that the fact of his incarnation is basically myth and not 'real' human events. What's the point of being incarnate flesh if there's no real time basis to the story? Atheists have a field day with this stuff - they accuse us, with some justification, of not believing our own Bible.
The doctrine of the Incarnation has little to do with the historicity of the Nativity Story.
Two different issues completely. John has an incarnation theology, but no Nativity.
Luke and Matthew include a Nativity narrative because for them, Jesus was proclaimed Christ at his birth.
For John, Nativity stories are pointless because Christ is the eternal Word existing from eternity. His origin was NOT in Bethlehem, but in the heart of God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For John, Nativity stories are pointless...
Extrapolating a bit here. I don't believe John ever said nativity stories are pointless.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
In Luke, Jesus is proclaimed as Christ at his conception.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
goperryrevs I think there's some conflict between the first couple of your sentences and the last, which you might like to explain.
Jammy Dodger and I had a discussion upthread some days ago about Bethlehem, how big it was and so forth. It was a city, which means as a minimum it had a gated wall. That wall may have been of stone or wood, but it would still have been there. The fact that Bethlehem was important enough to warrant a wall suggests strongly to me that it had an inn as well. A place of safety where travellers could spend the night.
Moving a bit further along that line of thought, think back to the rather romanticised pictures of Bethlehem as a settlement amongst the hills. Since the earlier discussion, I've thought a bit more about this and come back to Bethlehem as being along the lines of Bree - a walled town with an inn, not large but still offering hospitality to travellers.
Then to go back to the lack of archaeological evidence that there was an inn. I have zero knowledge of the area, but what sort of evidence would there be of an inn as opposed to a house? Any ideas welcome.
Well, when I read up on it, the main argument was that, because Bethlehem is only 5 miles from Jerusalem, any travellers would go straight through and not stop over night. In terms of archaeological evidence, I was thinking inscriptions, not actual buildings, but I too have little knowledge of that area.
Either way, I have no vested interest in there not having been an inn in Bethlehem, and if there was, hurrah - it makes little difference to anything much.
The only reason I find it interesting is that, like many things, we can assume that our 'picture' of the nativity is accurate, when it is actually based on our own cultural assumptions, and nativity plays and so on. Our actual knowledge is more murky. So people are surprised when they discover that we don't know how many wise men there were, or that there probably wasn't a 'stable' (more likely the downstairs of a house, where the animals were kept, or a cave), or that there might not have been an inn either. This kind of thing can apply to trivialities like these, but the same principles can apply to actually important issues too.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
goperryrevs: Well, when I read up on it, the main argument was that, because Bethlehem is only 5 miles from Jerusalem, any travellers would go straight through and not stop over night.
Five miles is still well over an hour's walk. When you're not doing it for exercise, I'd say that it's closer to two hours than one. Worse if you're carrying stuff.
I can also imagine that if you were going to Jerusalem and reached Bethlehem by nightfall, you wouldn't want to carry on because of robbers.
[ 17. December 2013, 15:08: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(more likely the downstairs of a house, where the animals were kept, or a cave)
Orthodox iconography of the Nativity always shows a cave, and our hymnody speaks of Christ being born "under the earth." Not everybody has forgotten.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Just us Western degenerates then
And fair point, LeRoc.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Five miles is still well over an hour's walk. When you're not doing it for exercise, I'd say that it's closer to two hours than one. Worse if you're carrying stuff.
And nine months pregnant.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mamacita: And nine months pregnant.
True (but we were talking about whether it made sense to have an inn in Bethlehem, not about the specific case of Joseph and Mary).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think it's very strange that you're alla rguing about the historicity of the nativity stories based on a mistranslation of the word so that we read 'inn'.
You're all imagining a Christmas card/nativity play scenario that the bible does not contain and then suggesting that the Bible isn't true because of it.
I've known for years that there was no inn - just a space round a courtyard where travellers bedded down.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You're all imagining a Christmas card/nativity play scenario that the bible does not contain and then suggesting that the Bible isn't true because of it.
Actually, I don't think anyone's doing that. The discussion about inns and the discussion about historicity are two entirely different ones; I've not seen anyone on this thread do what you've just described.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
Even in these days of cars and trains, I still find it very odd that people think 5 miles is too short a distance for an inn to be viable. When I go hillwalking, 5 miles at the end of the day is a very long way indeed.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
How much archaeology has been done in Bethlehem? Given that it is a currently inhabited city I suspect a systematic study is impossible.
There seems to be an argument that Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth was not only short an inn, it was short of everything (though given, I suspect, a lack of a systematic study I wouldn't make much of that).
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Hands up, it seems I wasn't as informed on inns and Bethlehem as I thought - despite reading up on it a while ago. The questions raised are legitimate ones. Thanks!
I still think that the truth is we just don't know, and that in the specific instance of Jesus' birth, 'kataluma' is better rendered 'guest room', rather than 'inn', since it leaves that ambiguity open, but yeah, Bethlehem could well have had an inn (or as Mudfrog suggests, at least some communal space for travellers).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Can I put to bed this idea that 5 miles is too far to walk?
Let's assume that Jerusalem is a centre for pilgrimage and that 7 times a year the world and his Jewish wife descend upon it from the 4 corners of Judea, Galilee and all the other places round that area. Do you think they'll all get into Jerusalem? No. I fail to see therefore why Bethlehem could not be considered a dormitory town - a kind of park and ride without the parking ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
"Oh but Dad, 5 miles is so far, we can't possibly walk that far..." ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Well, not with your twentyfirst century legs and the right of being carted around in a metal box - but in those days it was not far.
I know a woman who, when she was a child, walked twice a day to church - a 6 mile round trip both times.
Oh, and let me remind you that Jerusalem to Jericho is 15 miles and Jerusalem to Emmaus is 7 miles.
I think people were happy to travel those distances on foot.
[ 18. December 2013, 12:59: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I'm totally with you about the truth of God incarnate bit. I merely point out that the human condition involves mythologising stuff. We can't help it. It's what we do.
Agreed.
Surely we have to say (about all the details) 'nobody knows' and they never will.
And it really doesn't matter.
What matters is that God is with us.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Faith is not about factuality.
If Our Lord was born in Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem and the writer of the Gospel changed that uncomfortable fact because it would not fit a so-called prophecy in Micah.
It would not change the notion of Incarnation.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Faith is not about factuality.
If Our Lord was born in Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem and the writer of the Gospel changed that uncomfortable fact because it would not fit a so-called prophecy in Micah.
It would not change the notion of Incarnation.
No, maybe not - but it would compromise the integrity of the Scriptures.
There is no reason whatever to doubt the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem - especially if, as I have suggested, Joseph was originally a resident of Bethlehem.
I might also add this detail. The gospel says there was no room in the inn. This suggests there was only one inn that the writer had in mind. This either means that there was only one place in the entire city of Bethlehem that travellers could stay - which seems unlikely even though Bethlehem was not big. What seems likely to me is that Joseph and Mary did not travel aone to Bethlehem a la Christmas card scenario, but possibly travelled with others and certainly met up with many others of Joseph's family who were also in Bethlehem either as visitors or residents and that THE inn was Joseph's family's home, in which there was no room.
You see, not one of the supposed objections or so-called mythological accretions need not be historical fact.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
We are not saved by the "integrity of the Scriptures."
The Scriptures are stories, they are not factual accounts. Our instinctual dislike of narrative has more do with our attachment to Enlightenment thinking.
Narrative is primarily concerned with meaning, not with factual accuracy.
My question is why spend time trying to defend the story historically? Why not talk about the meaning of the story irrespective of the factual accuracy?
A story need not be factually true to convey meaning. Otherwise, instead of telling stories to our children, we should simply read biology and Physics textbooks to them for bedtime reading.
[ 18. December 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
So nothing actually happened, we've just got a fable that tells an eternal 'truth'?
What a load of crap.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So nothing actually happened, we've just got a fable that tells an eternal 'truth'?
What a load of crap.
The Gospels contain multiple layers of material. At the first level are things that are traceable to the Historical Jesus. We can be sure that there was a person in first century Judea, preaching the Kingdom of God, and who ended up crucified.
His followers, inspired and moved to proclaim this man to be the Christ, the Son of God, continued his mission in the Church. In their devotion to Him, they told stories about him. They were not historians, trying to snoop out what really happened. They instead, in their love drew out Hebrew Scripture, plus, considering that Luke was writing for a Gentile audience, from Greco-Roman myth. They were not being deceptive, they were just telling stories about a man they lived in much the same way that Americans talk about George Washington cutting an apple tree.
The meaning of Christmas is about encountering this Jesus Christ which is what the early Church did. It is not about a baby in a box in Bethlehem. It is about encountering this Jesus Christ, incarnate yes, as a historical figure, but also incarnate on our streets as a poor homeless man, or incarnate as a woman lost, brutally abused by her husband or father. It is about Jesus Christ, incarnate in creation, in the very birds and animals that live on this earth.
Thinking about Christmas in that way is more powerful than figuring out if a story "really happened."
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So nothing actually happened
Why does it have to either be "all" or "nothing"?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mudfrog: Can I put to bed this idea that 5 miles is too far to walk?
I'm not saying it's too far to walk, people in those days walked much further.
But suppose that you're from the First Century. You're a middle-aged travelling salesman from Jericho or even further, and you have to bring some merchandise to Jerusalem. Your health isn't perfect, but you can still walk it. You also have to carry quite a lot of stuff with you.
You had some delay along the road, and you reach Bethlehem by the end of the afternoon. There are 5 more miles to go, but you've already walked all day, the hot wind is blowing from the Negev Desert, and you still have to climb Mount Sion. It will take you at least two more hours to get there.
You're worried. It's already getting dark, robbers might start going by their business soon. You're also afraid that you might not reach Jerusalem before the gates close.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a good bowl of wine in Bethlehem and continue early in the morning?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Mudfrog: Can I put to bed this idea that 5 miles is too far to walk?
With a 9-months' pregnant woman? You may not. Absolutely not.
[ 18. December 2013, 15:12: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Mudfrog: Can I put to bed this idea that 5 miles is too far to walk?
With a 9-months' pregnant woman? You may not. Absolutely not.
Well indeed - Little Donkey anyone?
No, I thought I was referring to the argument against Bethlehem having guest accommodation because it was too far from Jerusalem. I say that it's entirely reasonable to have somewhere for travellers to Jerusalem to stay in Bethlehem.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I say that it's entirely reasonable to have somewhere for travellers to Jerusalem to stay in Bethlehem.
That's a really dumb argument, I agree. Ten miles isn't too far to drive, but there are plenty of motels in suburbs 10 miles out from Seattle.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(I'm having trouble following Mudfrog's argument. If I'm understanding it right, he's saying that 5 miles is not too far to walk but still it makes sense to have guest accomodation 5 miles from Jerusalem. Is that what you're saying?)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I'm having trouble following Mudfrog's argument. If I'm understanding it right, he's saying that 5 miles is not too far to walk but still it makes sense to have guest accomodation 5 miles from Jerusalem. Is that what you're saying?)
I'm having trouble understanding your objection!
The scenario is this:
Jerusalem is a place of pilgrimage. There is no room for everyone to stay in Jerusalem and so it is entirely reasonable for pilgrims to find accommodation in surrounding villages and towns. They can use these places as places to sleep for the night while they go into Jerusalem for the festivities.
Does that help you?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mudfrog: The scenario is this:
Jerusalem is a place of pilgrimage. There is no room for everyone to stay in Jerusalem and so it is entirely reasonable for pilgrims to find accommodation in surrounding villages and towns. They can use these places as places to sleep for the night while they go into Jerusalem for the festivities.
Aah, got it now. Did this really happen? I'm not sure. I guess that in this case it would make more sense commercially to open more accomodations in Jerusalem or closer to it.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I may be missing something. There is a reference to the notion of Mary, 9 months pregnant, walking the 5 miles between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Is it clear that she was 9 months pregnant when she and Joseph (and whoever else was in the party) traveled south? Isn't it quite possible that they were in Bethlehem for days, weeks or even months before she gave birth? I believe the phrase given is that "the days were accomplished".
Of course, a woman even 7 months pregnant might walk 5 miles rather slowly. On the other hand, it may be that they were all accustomed to walking, far more than we are, and that they thought nothing of it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Well she must have been at least 3 months pregnant because she stayed with Elizabeth for three months.
Now it does indeed say that 'while they were there the days were completed - so indeed, there is no necessary implication that her waters broke as they rode into town on the Little Donkey. They may indeed have been there a few weeks. That doesn't explain why she put the child in a manger because there was no room in the guest accommodation.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Chances are if they had been there more than a day or two, they could have scared up better accomodation--for the baby at least, somebody's old cradle or something. People aren't THAT mean.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
I recommend the chapter on the nativity in Kenneth E Bailey’s book: Jesus through Middle Eastern eyes : Cultural studies in the gospels (SPCK, 2008). From it I gleaned the following points: (My interpolations in square brackets.)
i) Joseph was a descendant of King David returning to the City of David. In view of the Middle Eastern social expectation of giving hospitality, even to strangers, it would have been an utterly unthinkable cause of everlasting shame and disgrace to the whole community if a member of the royal family had been required to doss down in an animal shelter. Every home in the town would have been open to him and Mary.
ii) A commercial inn for travellers was a pandocheion, and such a place was the destination of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:34-35, which was run by the pandocheus (innkeeper). This is not the word used in the nativity story.
iii) The typical basic home of the time consisted of a single family room for living and sleeping, with on the downhill side a lower section in which the family’s animals would be sheltered overnight, for security of the animals and because the heat generated by the animals would rise and warm up the sleeping accommodation. Wealthier people would have another room on the other side of the family room from the animals, available for visitors. This was the kataluma or guestroom, and this is the word used in Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11 and in the nativity account at Luke 2:7.
[Why it is that Bible translators continue to translate as ‘inn’ at Luke2:7 is beyond me. Perhaps influenced more by tradition than the text itself? And I wonder if the original influence in favour of ‘inn’ was the Vulgate, which uses diversorium in Luke 2:7. Oh, and here Bailey backs up the points made by other shipmates above.]
iv) The feed for the animals in the lower section was placed in a scooped-out hollow in the floor at the edge of the family room where the animals could get to it. [I guess that the stock of animal feed would be kept in the family room – if it had been kept in the animals’ section they could have scoffed it all at once.] So an impromptu cradle could be formed by filling the feeding-hollow with straw.
v) There is nothing at all in the text to say that the birth took place in the animals’ section of the house – the ‘stable’. It is most likely that as the guestroom was already occupied by other visitors, Joseph and Mary were welcomed into the family living (and sleeping) room itself. At the time of the birth, the men of the house would have been required to leave, and the local midwife and other women would have attended and assisted in the birth. So, far from the inhospitality of being turfed out to an animal shelter, Mary would have been welcomed into the communal and intimate part of the family dwelling.
vi) Much of the traditional understanding of the events of the nativity comes from a 3rd-century work of imaginative fiction, based on the nativity story, called The Protevangelium of James which includes the scenario of the birth of Jesus taking place in a cave, and the idea of a last-minute arrival and immediate emergency birth. The latter point can be contradicted by the first words of 2:6 ‘While they were there, the time came...’ which implies that Mary and Joseph were already established in accommodation in Bethlehem.
The traditional depiction of the nativity as portrayed in countless church and school nativity plays, with the unwelcoming innkeeper grudgingly allowing Mary and Joseph to doss in a stable, owes more to the product of combining misleading translation and the encrustation of fictional elaboration than to the Biblical account itself. But if this encrustation of fable is stripped away, I have no problem at all in viewing the nativity account as entirely historical.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
... I believe in the Virgin Birth and Mary and Joseph fetching up in Bethlehem but I don't think that Luke and Matthew writing sixty to eighty odd years after the event trumps any critical objections that can be levelled in 2013, per se.
Twenty to thirty years, more like.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel.
There are sufficient historical parallels to Luke's preface that one could make a convincing case that this was the kind of stock introduction one used when one was about to modify a series of existing stories.
Is there any evidence that Luke modified the stories? I agree that there is literary and linguistic evidence in the text that Luke inserted words and phrases to explain and clarify Hebraic phraseology for a non-Jewish readership. For example, Luke 2:4 ‘...because he was of the house and lineage of David’ is tautologous, since ‘house of’ and ‘lineage of’ mean the same thing. The Hebraic original is most likely ‘... because he was of the house of David’ into which Luke has added the editorial kai patrias for those who would not understand that ‘house of ...’ meant ‘family of ’ in a Hebraic context. But that hardly counts as modification.
Angus
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
Great post A. Pilgrim.
Thanks for putting such an eloquent case for the historical accuracy of the accounts, once you have stripped away the accrued traditional fables.
Btw - that Kenneth Bailey book is really good. I've found it very helpful in trying to unpick Western assumptions about the text.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I recommend the chapter on the nativity in Kenneth E Bailey’s book: ........
Angus
Thanks Angus, if this had been Facebook I would simply have 'liked' what you have written: good stuff and I agree with every word.
I wish we could go back to the plain account of Scripture and explore what is there rather than look at it through 2000 years of tradition.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I may be missing something. There is a reference to the notion of Mary, 9 months pregnant, walking the 5 miles between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Is it clear that she was 9 months pregnant when she and Joseph (and whoever else was in the party) traveled south? Isn't it quite possible that they were in Bethlehem for days, weeks or even months before she gave birth? I believe the phrase given is that "the days were accomplished".
Of course, a woman even 7 months pregnant might walk 5 miles rather slowly. On the other hand, it may be that they were all accustomed to walking, far more than we are, and that they thought nothing of it.
This depends on exactly where in Bethlehem you are and where exactly in Jerusalem you are going to. The closest parts of Bethlehem and Jerusalem today are a lot closer than 5 miles apart, although the nativity church is probably at least 5 miles from the old city of Jerusalem. Which just shows that you can't really critically examine an old story which doesn't give more than general information.
Personally, I have a lot less problem believing someone heavily pregnant walks from Bethlehem to Jerusalem (which is a bit uphill) than that a young family escapes from Jerusalem to Egypt, across a desert and other hazardous obstacles, with a small child.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
i) Joseph was a descendant of King David returning to the City of David. In view of the Middle Eastern social expectation of giving hospitality, even to strangers, it would have been an utterly unthinkable cause of everlasting shame and disgrace to the whole community if a member of the royal family had been required to doss down in an animal shelter. Every home in the town would have been open to him and Mary.
I think this is overstating things massively. Yes - he is likely to have had many relations in town who - in a communitarian society - would have taken both him and Mary in. I don't think it can be due to him being a descendent of David though - this would have probably applied to a large minority in Bethlehem.
I think Kenneth Bailey is helpful - but his points are often exaggerated along the lines of the exotic east.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
The posts in this thread have been fascinating. Thank you everyone who contributed.
I join in the camp of those for whom the actual history of the nativity is less important than the theological significance of the nativity. Frankly, I believe Matthew and Luke (whoever they might have actually been) were in the same camp.
There are details in the narratives that push me in that direction. Among others, Mary goes and visits her - conveniently enough - cousin, Elizabeth. Elizabeth just happens to be pregnant with John the Baptist, who leaps and capers about inside Elizabeth's womb when Mary appears with fetal Jesus.
Gosh, how convenient. Mary, a very young woman (early teens) who just became pregnant before actually - erm - having sex with Joseph, is allowed to traipse off to another village about a hundred miles distant and visit her cousin for three months. Joseph was one laid back dude.
Oh, I take that back. I'm sure a newly wed bride had pretty much nothing to do around the house and an extended visit with a convenient cousin was pretty much the norm back then.
Mary and Joseph go way the heck over from Nazereth to Bethlehem to take part in a census that would make sense to a fairly pragmatic set of Romans because . . . I guess because knowing how badly they were going to treat our Lord and Savior later they wanted Him to at least have a good start. Those Romans could always be counted on to be a deus ex machina when you needed one.
Sarcasm aside, the motivations of the authors are obvious. They are addressing their writings to communities of people who might need to be persuaded to worship a figure who got himself crucified instead of overthrowing Roman rule like everyone thought the prophesies said. These same writings were likely occurring not too long after those same trippy Romans made the streets of Jerusalem run red with blood.
Does it matter that the authors might have played a little fast and loose with the "truth?" It depends on what you mean by truth. The Truth to me is that God sent among us a man who was also wholly divine and this man suffered as we suffer. This man, Jesus, shows us all that God loves us and cares about us and that we are saved from our human sins. Everything else is just commentary as far as I am concerned.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
This last post brings up an interesting question. Did Mary just happen to decide all of a sudden to go see her much-older cousin Elizabeth, or was this a planned visit? After all, Elizabeth is pregnant and may need help (especially as her husband has lost his voice); we have this healthy girl with nothing to do, so let's send her to go help Elizabeth. She can stay at least until the baby is born.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I just thought of something over the weekend in light of yesterday's lectionary reading:
Did Joseph technically "lie" when he took Mary as his wife in that he claimed that her Son was his?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I doubt anybody asked him. I mean, girl turns up pregnant, fiance moves marriage forward--would YOU ask?
So, no need to lie.
Though I rather doubt her pregnancy was terribly well known, if Joseph still thought he had the option of a quiet divorce (as opposed to a stinkin' big scandal). Unless she was really tiny, I expect she wasn't showing much if at all at three-four months along. I always figured she told her Mom she really thought she ought to go give cousin Elizabeth a hand during the last difficult months, Mom figured it would be good practice for Mary's own upcoming married life, and they sent her off with some respectable family traveling that direction (maybe for Passover?).
And Mary, being an honest person, 'fessed up to Joseph when she got back. No point in putting it off any longer. She'd had three months to get used to the idea (and to have morning sickness and no period to hammer the reality of it all home). At which point Joseph simply couldn't wrap his head around it and stayed up half the night agonizing... I rather expect Mary did, too. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Sarcasm aside, the motivations of the authors are obvious. They are addressing their writings to communities of people who might need to be persuaded to worship a figure who got himself crucified instead of overthrowing Roman rule like everyone thought the prophesies said. These same writings were likely occurring not too long after those same trippy Romans made the streets of Jerusalem run red with blood.
Does it matter that the authors might have played a little fast and loose with the "truth?" It depends on what you mean by truth. The Truth to me is that God sent among us a man who was also wholly divine and this man suffered as we suffer. This man, Jesus, shows us all that God loves us and cares about us and that we are saved from our human sins. Everything else is just commentary as far as I am concerned.
AFAIAA Matthew's Gospel was written as a 5-part teaching manual for Messianic Jews who already believed in Jesus. They didn't need persuading.
As far as your last paragraph is concerned, in referring to those all-important facts that "God sent among us a man who was also wholly divine and this man suffered as we suffer. This man, Jesus, shows us all that God loves us and cares about us and that we are saved from our human sins," I would simply ask the question: 'How do you know?'
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Sarcasm aside, the motivations of the authors are obvious. They are addressing their writings to communities of people who might need to be persuaded to worship a figure who got himself crucified instead of overthrowing Roman rule like everyone thought the prophesies said. These same writings were likely occurring not too long after those same trippy Romans made the streets of Jerusalem run red with blood.
Does it matter that the authors might have played a little fast and loose with the "truth?" It depends on what you mean by truth. The Truth to me is that God sent among us a man who was also wholly divine and this man suffered as we suffer. This man, Jesus, shows us all that God loves us and cares about us and that we are saved from our human sins. Everything else is just commentary as far as I am concerned.
AFAIAA Matthew's Gospel was written as a 5-part teaching manual for Messianic Jews who already believed in Jesus. They didn't need persuading.
As far as your last paragraph is concerned, in referring to those all-important facts that "God sent among us a man who was also wholly divine and this man suffered as we suffer. This man, Jesus, shows us all that God loves us and cares about us and that we are saved from our human sins," I would simply ask the question: 'How do you know?'
We don't. Nor do you. Insisting on the historicity of the gospel accounts just pushes the problem onto them - how do you know they're historical? You don't.
In religion, no-one knows anything. People believe, hypothesise, hope. They do not know. All this talk of knowing is pure hubris.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What do you mean we cannot know? Has not God revealed the truth of these things to us?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
AFAIAA Matthew's Gospel was written as a 5-part teaching manual for Messianic Jews who already believed in Jesus. They didn't need persuading.
As far as your last paragraph is concerned, in referring to those all-important facts that "God sent among us a man who was also wholly divine and this man suffered as we suffer. This man, Jesus, shows us all that God loves us and cares about us and that we are saved from our human sins," I would simply ask the question: 'How do you know?'
Haven't you answered your first question? If Matthew is a teaching manual then it is intended, at least in part, to persuade the untaught.
As to How do I know - I don't "know." I believe.
I didn't "know" that dawn would come this morning and yet it did. I don't "know" that Jesus, shows us all that God loves us and cares about us and that we are saved from our human sins. I believe it.
What point are you trying to make with that question?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What do you mean we cannot know? Has not God revealed the truth of these things to us?
How do you know that he has? You don't. You believe. You do not know.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
... I believe in the Virgin Birth and Mary and Joseph fetching up in Bethlehem but I don't think that Luke and Matthew writing sixty to eighty odd years after the event trumps any critical objections that can be levelled in 2013, per se.
Twenty to thirty years, more like.
Can we clarify. Are you seriously claiming that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written twenty to thirty years after the nativity? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Surely 50-60 years at a conservative estimate.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
... I believe in the Virgin Birth and Mary and Joseph fetching up in Bethlehem but I don't think that Luke and Matthew writing sixty to eighty odd years after the event trumps any critical objections that can be levelled in 2013, per se.
Twenty to thirty years, more like.
Can we clarify. Are you seriously claiming that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written twenty to thirty years after the nativity?
Ah, no ... you are quite right to question. For some unaccountable reason I had a mental glitch and was thinking of the crucifixion and resurrection. My mistake. Add 30 years, so 50 to 60...
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I just thought of something over the weekend in light of yesterday's lectionary reading:
Did Joseph technically "lie" when he took Mary as his wife in that he claimed that her Son was his?
My understanding is that Joseph adopted Jesus as his son when he named him - this is the significance of Matt 1:25. The question of Jesus's biological parentage remained, as can be seen from the instances when his opponents referred to him as Mary's son which is tantamount to calling him a bastard to his face. (Regret no time to find exact reference for this.)
Angus
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
I don't know how accurate this is, given that I have no scholarly references to check it out. But my understanding is on this wise:
When I was a newly-minted teenager, I went on a school field trip to a university planetarium. The presentation was specifically about the life of Jesus -- the star the wise men saw, the eclipse while Jesus was on the cross, etc. They had pinned down the probable dates for the eclipse. They further speculated that the star or stars that started the wise men saw were Jupiter and Saturn within the constellation Pisces, and that there was another astronomical phenomenon going on at the same time that told them that there was a new king in Israel.
Meanwhile, Joseph needed to go register for the census and pay the tax. Information I've heard said that such censuses gave a year for people to comply. Since travel was difficult, it would have been exceedingly likely that the trip would be combined with another, important trip. There are three holy days that all Jews are required to celebrate in Jerusalem if at all possible: Passover, Pentecost, and Atonement.
The Day of Atonement requires a lot of animals, particularly sheep, to be sacrificed. This falls on or about 21 September. The weather is warm, and the temple flocks would have been near Jerusalem. Shepherds would have had the flocks in an enclosure at night, and would have slept in the doorway to keep predators out and sheep in.
Mary and Joseph almost certainly would not have been alone. Joseph's brothers, parents (if living), adult children (if they existed), and so forth would have all had to register. There would have likely been an entire entourage -- especially since travel was dangerous, particularly on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem. People tended to band together for safety.
Anyway, not sure if it's right... but to me it is plausible.
But more than that, it doesn't so much matter in the grand scheme.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0