Christmas through the eyes...
jay_emm
Kerygmania Host
in Kerygmania
It's practically advent.
So I thought a thread looking at the experiences of the various characters in the Christmas narratives might be interesting.
we have Jesus (the Word of John and baby), Mary, Elizabeth/Zechariah, Shepherds, Angels, Simeon and Anna, Joseph, Maji, Herod. And then various people implied or described in tradition, film or elsewhere (e.g. the innkeeper)
So to begin with the shepherds.
At least as presented in Hallmark cards, seeing an angel (especially as a group) must be pretty life changing.
Maybe it is easier to let a memory fade. Or maybe the Angel was more of a Messenger (from the town)
But imagine the conversation with Rabbis in years to come " you have your second hand teaching but we've seen it".
How was the journey to the place, presumably"the place with a new-born baby" didnt need much searching for.
If they left their flocks, did they come to them scattered?
So I thought a thread looking at the experiences of the various characters in the Christmas narratives might be interesting.
we have Jesus (the Word of John and baby), Mary, Elizabeth/Zechariah, Shepherds, Angels, Simeon and Anna, Joseph, Maji, Herod. And then various people implied or described in tradition, film or elsewhere (e.g. the innkeeper)
So to begin with the shepherds.
At least as presented in Hallmark cards, seeing an angel (especially as a group) must be pretty life changing.
Maybe it is easier to let a memory fade. Or maybe the Angel was more of a Messenger (from the town)
But imagine the conversation with Rabbis in years to come " you have your second hand teaching but we've seen it".
How was the journey to the place, presumably"the place with a new-born baby" didnt need much searching for.
If they left their flocks, did they come to them scattered?
Comments
I was going to comment further, but I will not finish before the edit window closes.
In Greco Roman mythology the heavens would sing with the birth of a great leader. There is 7th century BCE story of Hesiod's Encounter with the Muses that seems to have some common threads with the shepherd's story. Gentile audiences would recognize something very important has happened.
Luke also likely included the story of the shepherds at the beginning of his history to show that Jesus was for the outcasts from the beginning. Shepherds were outcasts in Jewish societies for a number of reasons. They did not follow Jewish law much. They smelled. They were poor. While their great king had been a shepherd, the profession had a lot to be desired.
As far as the shepherds leaving their flocks to find this Jesus wrapped in the manger, there is a similar story of the Good Shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to find the one lost lamb. But I would not want to over think either story. A modern editor would hate to leave a story dangling, but the Biblical writers were not that logical in their accounts.
Anna (Holy, Righteous Anna the Prophetess in Orthodoxy) has always been a fascinating "minor" Biblical person to me. Worshipping God by fasting and praying day and night, not departing the temple, seeing the infant Jesus and then proclaiming him to those 'waiting for redemption'. A striking example of a life in service and love of God and one that, personally, others may react differently, causes me to be encouraged to go further in my spiritual life.
There are some interesting hymns and texts that emphasise the sort of things you might expect, the Incarnation, the obedience of the Virgin Mary and so on - many deploying those paradoxes that are a feature of much Orthodox hymnody.
I like @Climacus's comments about Anna.
As far as I'm concerned on this thread, it's up to you even you want to be Luke only, Matthew only, or how you want to rationalise or combine, or import tradition. If it matters do drop hints, and respect the hints of others.
I was reminded of the shepherds in parables.
With Jesus being born between 4-8 BC, and Anna 84 years old, Anna would have been born around 90BC. She would probably have married as a teenager - say at 19 - so around 70BC. She's widowed after 7 years - 63BC Lots of assumptions there. But it gives a possibility that she saw this particular triumph of the Gentiles up close. In any event she would have been alive at the time.
Maybe it was being an eyewitness to that crushing defeat which was inspiring her to fast and pray. Like Simeon looking for the Consolation of Israel and the restoration of the Davidic monarchy.
He seems more the anti-Joshua to me. Joshua leads a mind-screwingly violent war of extermination and genocide. Jesus preaches love for enemies. Joshua puts thousands of people to the sword for existing where he wants ethnically cleanse; Jesus says to put the sword back in its place as those who live by the sword risk dying by it.
Well, it does seem noteworthy that the first thing the angels often say is “Don’t be afraid.” Not something one would normally say if there wasn’t reason to react with fear.
For those who might likely a somewhat different perspective, I might suggest Certain Poor Shepherds: A Christmas Tale, by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas. It is the story of a goat, Ima, and a sheepdog, Lila, who see a star while watching over a flock of sheep. The star is big and bright and has a scent somewhere between honey and water, so the decide to follow it.
It’s been years since I read it, though it’s still on my shelf, but my memory is that anthropomorphism is kept to a minimum. The author makes some effort to describe things in ways that make sense for animals.
It’s the sort of book that, in my experience, people either really like or really don’t like. But if it’s the sort of book you might like, I recommend it.
'For our fight is not against flesh and blood ...'
I tend to allegorise/spiritualise the warfare and bloodshed in the Hebrew scriptures, but am aware that doing so doesn't remove all the problems.
First the natural, then the spiritual ...
I don't tend to regard books like Joshua as literal history, but certainly see some kind of reflection of historical events in them. There's precious little archaeological evidence for the Conquest of Canaan as it were but that doesn't mean that there wasn't tensions between the emerging Israelite tribes and other people's nor that the ancient Hebrews didn't see God as some kind of warrior deity out to 'smite' their enemies or sanction violence.
There are signs of a shift within the OT itself, including even within the Book of Joshua. 'Are you for us or for our enemies?'
To which the angel patiently replies, "I am Gabriel (angel, yes? right here?). I stand in the presence of God (is that enough of a sign for you? maybe not). I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news." Read with just the right intonation, it comes off as a reminder that this is, in fact, good news, whatever horrid mental visions might have been rising in Zechariah's mind...
"And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place" (so THERE's your sign for you! miraculous muteness).
I find these things very helpful for me, as long as I keep in mind that they are possibilities, even probabilities sometimes, but not guaranteed Gospel truth. But they remind me that everybody in the story (well, bar the angels) was very human indeed.
Oh, I agree. There is much humor in the Christmas story.
Zechariah's reaction is very similar to Abraham's reaction when the LORD tells him he will have a son through Sarah Gen 17.17. Abraham fell on his face laughing. I imagine there were tears in his eyes when he said that. When Sarah does have a baby, they call him Isaac, meaning laughter.
There is a strong typology between the Abraham story and the Christmas story.
Not read it yet, but will read for inspiration and if there are any relevant "why didn't I think of that" or "really moments" I will share.
Was intrigued how the writer could get nine female viewpoints (from the contents, it turns out the 3 obvious, 2 named by sneaking in patriarchs and prophets, 1 assumed midwife, priestly and courtier spouses, and mum).
I was reading a homily by St Gregory of Nyssa (as one does...) and he made the point, with some intense descriptions*, that Herod's "boys 2 and under" may have resulted in some mothers having 2 children killed (potentially more I suppose if twins, triplets...). I had not considered that.
* e.g "...The one would be dragging towards him the child that was running back to his mother, while the other would be tearing the suckling away from his mother’s bosom..."
One thing from the book directly relevant is her suggestion that we think of the shepherds being old (which I do), but that there are loads of examples of relatively young shepherds in the bible (and for that matter you have Daphnis and Chloe in greek tales).
It's interesting that we Orthodox are cool with doing this but tend to have reservations about the use of the imagination in prayer as in the Jesuit Ignatian 'imagen' sense.
It's as if it's OK to include these things in official liturgical texts but not to 'try this at home.'
I once went on an Ignatian retreat and noticed they had meditative material that put words into Mary's mouth and so on. I didn't have that much of a problem with it as it didn't appear to contradict the Gospel narratives in any way.
I can understand people preferring not to do this sort of thing though.
In Matthew 2 we are told that Herod gave the murderous order. But maybe it wasn't carried out?
Anyhow Joseph, there isn't an awful lot about him. Tradition has him relatively old. The whole experience must have been unsettling, I do wonder how his emotions went.
Was the 'divorce quietly' his first reaction or did he have a blazing row then... If you did have a classic nativity did he feel like a bit part, did he as the 'kings' father receive the maji's gifts?
Obviously the bible says negligible things about them, but they clearly existed.
Tradition has them moderately old at conception, do you think it likely they were still around, in either case does it make a difference to how you see the nativity (is it given that they and Joseph's parents lived near)?
If they had been told Mary would be special did they feel their hopes were being ripped away or fulfilled?
Given tradition calls her Holy Anny Jesus Granny I occasionally wonder if there is a connection to Anna in the temple (as an interaction it makes sense, and it would be easy for Mary to omit in telling)
So Zechariah weve already partially discussed, but presumably by John's birth day was aware of Marys condition, maybe talking beforr the visit
(Did Mary expect a good welcome? "Hi priest, I'm having a baby, no not married, but it is Y..." isn't going to go down well)
Elizabeth we get a straight up biblical statement of emotions (or at least the emotions ascribed to her).
Niv states relative, If the relationship is close then that would tie their ages together, and cause tradition trouble, if distant then why does Mary get sent there.
It kind of works that Anna's sister/brother has Elizabeth early and then Elizabeth shows the late motherhood trait.
And John presumably is only thinking of milk at this time, but later...
Can we make the case for Marks Gospel to be the tenth lesson (I doubt it).
But:
a) why do they have to be the same family tree generation. Sending your 'wayward daughter' to an aunt makes some sense.
b) there are enough siblings with big age gaps
c) you don't need to be that old to be desperate for a baby and feel it's not happening.
* I'm not suggesting that Mary went and told them--that would raise the obvious question, "And how do you know?" I'm suspecting the news came with a traveler and arrived not too many days after Mary herself knew. It's not that terribly far, a hundred miles or less--and since Jerusalem (with the temple and its mandatory yearly worship ceremonies!) lies in that same direction on the way to Elizabeth's house, there were probably travelers back and forth pretty often.
It's appealing but doesn't really fit with the way Anna's age and marital history is presented.
To be clear, tradition asserts the name of Mary's mother to be Anne, and has Sainted her. The rhyme, I think I heard from the ship (maybe a sermon, or similar).
Oh, yes that would likely make a very old Mary (with the Niv phrasing, you could maybe force it through. E.g. Marries at 60, miracle baby and widow at 67, normal nativity at 17. But that's a lot of work to avoid two people having the same common name).
We have historically attested examples of Herod the Great giving orders that weren't carried out. On his deathbed he reportedly ordered the execution of the eagle stealers, the execution of the crown prince, and the execution the leading citizens from every town in Judea. Only the first two of these orders were obeyed. My guess is that if Herod had not been obviously dying that last order would have been carried out as well.
And, along those lines, here is an excerpt from de Voraigne's "The Golden Legend" concerning Anne (and her apparent fondness for the name "Mary"):
Of course, de Voraigne's work should never be confused with historical accuracy. Personally, I read it for amusement.
Then there is the question of how many innocents were killed. There is a Greek liturgy that claimed 14,000 boys were killed. A Syrian liturgy claimed 64,000 were killed. Some medieval traditions had as high as 144,000 were killed.
In reality, Bethlehem was at town of about 300 residents at the time of Jesus' birth. That means there were probably only two to six boys under the age of two at the time. (More information here).
That said, the loss of any child to murder is horrendous, including the killing of children in Syria, Sudan, Gaza today.
As for the number of children, I think you're forgetting "Bethlehem and all that region" which is a bit bigger, plus the fact that this was a registration year according to Luke, and if Joseph was obliged by Davidid ancestry to go to Bethlehem, how many more people would have been in his shoes? David really got around. I'm inclined to think a couple dozen kids. (I doubt too that they were pulling down diapers to verify gender, and kids under three look very much alike--I certainly can't tell a male three-year-old from a female two-year-old except by dress, which in their time and area wouldn't have been highly gendered. Probably a short dress or smock of some sort for both sexes.
To the point of when Jewish children were considered persons--I had used fully human in my sentence, I refer you to this article from the Biblical Archeology Society.. Point is personhood was not fully gained at birth till sometime later.
To the assertion that Bethlehem would have been packed because of the census, look at the internal evidence of the story. I would assume it took some time for the magi to have reached Jerusalem after they had seen the Nativity Star. Then there would have been the time they had waited for Herod to reply to their question of where is the new king, and then there would be a time lapse between the time the magi departed Jerusalem for Bethlehem and Herod realizing he had been tricked. Herod somehow calculated the child would have been no more than two years old. If his calculations were correct, Bethlehem would have returned to its small town population.
There is also the question about if there was actually a census as reported in Luke. Ralph Martin Novak in his book Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts notes .that the Romans would not have ordered a census of client states for the purposes of taxation. It may have been ordered by Quirinius who had just became the governor of Galilee. But, since Mary of Joseph were residents of Nazareth, they would have been from another province and would have been not required to go to Bethlehem.
It seems Luke was using the census as a literary device to place Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus.
In any case, after the visit of the magi, Joseph and Mary find themselves exiled to Egypt with their child. That tradition has many questions as well.
Sorry, but the article reads to me like the author made her up her mind first and then contorted the verses to make them fit. I’d be curious how she’d fit the meaning of circumcision into her reading. The only thing it persuades me of is that the author doesn’t understand what she’s talking about.
And regardless, she focuses on the Exodus and on verses dealing with child sacrifice. That says nothing about attitudes at the time of Jesus and Herod.
Well, the only other resource I can point you to is https://academic.oup.com/book/5735/chapter-abstract/148881175?redirectedFrom=fulltext
But access to the full article is limited to academic research, and I do not have direct access to it.
But since this article is by the same author (T. M. Lemos) as the first one you linked to, my expectations would be very low if I could read the article. Those low expectations are kept low by the title of the article—“Visiting the Iniquity of the Father on the Son: Violence and the Personhood of Children in Ancient Israel”—since the article we could read demonstrated a failure to recognize that “children” can mean both “very young humans” and “offspring” or “descendants.” The failure to recognize that seemed a significant flaw in the first article, particularly with regard to the “visiting the iniquity” passages.
Yes, Lemos was the same author of both articles I cited. One is obviously written for academic consideration; the other was written in a layman's magazine. Just because the responses to the layman's article were negative does not mean Lemos is wrong after all we do not know the background of the responders.
My point is that Herod thought he could get away with murder, maybe because society at the time did not consider toddlers full persons; and, even then, we are not talking about a mass killing of thousands of boys, but likely two to eight boys. Back in the 1900s even the (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia said it was probably no more than 20 boys see online article.
Please note, I also said the murder of Holy Innocents is still happening today wherever there is war. Like Gaza, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine. It really has not stopped.