Nativity of Jesus
From Free net encyclopedia
Template:Gospel Jesus Image:Iconnativity.jpg The Nativity refers to the birth of Jesus. According to traditional telling of the birth of Jesus Christ, Jesus was born in the city of Bethlehem in a stable, surrounded by farm animals and shepherds, and Jesus was born into a manger from the Virgin Mary assisted by her husband Joseph.
Remembering or re-creating the Nativity is one of the central ways that Christians celebrate Christmas. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church practices the Nativity Fast in anticipation of the birth of Jesus Christ, while the Roman Catholic Church celebrates Advent. In some Christian churches, children often perform plays re-creating the events of the Nativity, or sing some of the numerous Christmas carols that reference the event. Many Christians also display a small re-creation of the Nativity known as a Nativity scene in their homes, using small figurines to portray the key characters of the event. Live Nativity scenes are also re-enacted using Human actors and live animals to portray the event with more realism.
The apocryphal Protevangelium of James elaborates on the narrative, and covers the time before Jesus' birth, providing the source for later Roman Catholic beliefs such as the Annunciation and Immaculate Conception, which are not present in the bible. Conversely, the very apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (which is not even remotely the same as the Gospel of Thomas) covers the period after the birth, during Jesus' youth, and describes several extremely miraculous events, providing the source for other traditional beliefs, depicted in art, that have since fallen out of favour in almost all Christian churches.
Contents |
Dating
Though Jesus's birth is celebrated on December 25, and dated to the start of 1AD (there is no year 0), most scholars agree that it is unlikely he was actually born on this date. Luke's mention of a census and Matthew's of Herod the Great and a Star of Bethlehem help fix the dating, and the most plausible time of year is early September or late March. The census that Luke speaks of is almost universally identified with that of Quirinius, who conducted a census of Judea in 6 or 7 AD. Unfortunately Herod died in 4BC, making it somewhat impossible for the accounts of Matthew and Luke to agree.
Location
The odd location of the birth is traditionally put down to the result of Joseph and Mary being forced by order of Herod the Great to leave their homes in Nazareth and come to the home of Joseph's ancestors, the house of David, for a census. With a whole city full of people who had made the pilgrimage, there was no room for the expecting couple at the town's inn. This tradition derives from a conflation of the account in the Gospel of Luke, which states that the couple headed to Bethlehem for a census, with that in the Gospel of Matthew, which states that Herod ordered them to leave their homes. Historically, Herod the Great had been dead for 10 years before the census occurred, casting quite a bit of doubt on the accuracy of the text.
Mark's narrative does not begin with a nativity but instead starts with an adult Jesus in the region of Galilee. As well as the justification of accurate reporting, several scholars more willing to criticise the accuracy have proposed alternate reasons for Matthew and Luke to wish to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. Luke, writing for a Hellenic audience, may have chosen to use the term Bethlehem, Hebrew for house of bread, due to similar terms occurring in a few mystery religions and a syncretistic tendency in Luke's writing, though this explanation is only advanced by a minority of scholars. Matthew on the other hand is often suspected by scholars of trying to portray Jesus as a new Moses, though obviously based in Palestine, and would have thus had a strong motive to demonstrate Jesus' claim to the Jewish crown by placing his birth in the city of king David. Each gospel gives a different explanation of how Jesus could end up in Galilee but be born in Bethlehem; Luke has Jesus's family living in Galilee but temporarily go to Bethlehem, while Matthew has Jesus's family living in the area, but then need to escape to Egypt once Jesus is born, from where they move to Galilee to continue living in safety.
Although the event is usually depicted as taking place in a man-made free standing structure, many biblical scholars believe that the stable was probably a cave carved in the side of a hill - as this was the typical location of stables in Classical Palestine. Others believe that the manger was not in a stable at all but in a lower floor room of a building or house where agricultural tools and grain stores were normally kept, but where animals were brought into on cold nights or to protect them from thieves. The Bible does not specifically mention an inn keeper or a stable or even animals (except the flocks of the shepherds) relating to the birth of Jesus, and these extra traditions derive from works in the New Testament apocrypha; the Arabic Infancy Gospel introduces the donkey and the ox, while the Protevangelium of James introduces the inn keeper, as well as the midwife that is no longer part of the tradition. Technically, the tradition of the birth location derives from the translation of a Greek term which ambiguously means either gathering room (an upper room in a home) and or cave.
Mary's pregnancy
Paternity
Image:Betrothment of Mary to Joseph XCIIIIv.jpg
In first century Judea, betrothal was a very different concept to twentieth century ideas of an engagement; the period occurred after the main marriage ceremony had taken place and the marriage contracts had been signed, and was very much a till death do we part affair, at least until a formal divorce was granted. In general the betrothal ceremony took place when the woman was still very young, generally around age twelve or thirteen, and after the ceremony she would remain in their father's house for around a year. After this point the husband would take the bride into his own home - which most scholars think is the meaning of Mary being pregnant before they came together; Mary being pregnant before the two shared a home, rather than stating that she became pregnant before the two had had sex, although it could be interpreted this way.
Matthew merely glosses over how Mary came to be pregnant, which Schweizer thinks implies that Matthew's audience were already well aware of the story of the Virgin Birth - there were several virgin birth stories in the Jewish tradition and so the idea of virgin births was generally accepted by the population -, though it could just as easily be explained by Matthew trying to avoid discussing any implication of pre-marital sex, or adultery. Matthew mentions the paternity of the Holy Ghost very quickly, even before any of the characters in his narrative are aware of this fact, which Brown argues is because Matthew does not want the reader to ever consider alternate scenarios as to how Mary could have become pregnant. It is worth noting that in Greek, the term Holy Ghost is gender neutral and in Semitic languages it is female, thus Matthew, so Matthew's audience may have been likely to take this to dispel notions of actual copulation, like the myths surrounding several ancient gods and mortal women, although the grammatical gender of abstract concepts frequently has no relation to their actual natural gender, and so the wording could still describe an actual sexual act.
Matthew 1:25 is, however, quite explicit that Joseph could not be the father of Jesus, stating that Mary and Joseph had not had sex before Jesus was born. This is frequently extrapolated by supporters of the concept of a Virgin Birth to imply that not only had Mary not had sex with Joseph before Jesus was born, but that she had also had sex with no-one else, i.e. was a virgin. Older and more puritanical translations often bowdlerized this passage using more euphemistic wording, though modern versions are much more explicit about the lack of sex. Many Protestants take the verse to imply that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born, but other groups, particularly the Roman Catholics, argue that the passage is far vaguer in the original Greek than it is in English, and support the idea that Mary permanently remained a virgin. David Hill, a Presbyterian, acknowledges that the wording does not absolutely deny perpetual virginity, but argues that if the idea had been current at the time, then Matthew would have been more explicit about it. Curiously, the Genealogy of Jesus in the oldest surviving copy of the Gospel of Matthew - the Codex Sinaiticus - appears to explicitly state that Joseph was the father of Jesus.
Joseph's attitude
Image:Joseph's Dream in the Stable.jpg
The exact meaning of why Matthew describes Joseph as a "just man" is much discussed; the Greek term is dikaios, and it has variously been translated as just, righteous, upright, and of good character. Most of the ancient commentators of the Bible interpreted it as meaning that Joseph was law abiding, and as such decided to divorce Mary in keeping with Mosaic Law when he found her pregnant by another, but, tempering righteousness by mercy, he kept the affair private. A second view, first put forward by Clement of Alexandria, and held by most modern Christians is that Joseph's righteousness is his mercy itself, with the decision to ensure Mary was not shamed being proof of his righteousness rather than an exception to it. A third view is based on the idea that Joseph already knew the origin of Mary's pregnancy, which is more in keeping with the Gospel of Luke, leading to the view that Joseph's righteousness is pious acceptance of Mary's story.
Joseph's original intent, though, was to divorce Mary, once he had discovered her pregnancy, though some scholars, and most older translations, have expressed this more euphemistically, since Joseph, a man having just been described as righteous, undergoing divorce, would imply that divorce was righteous. Especially in the nineteenth century a number of scholars tried to read alternate meanings into the term, with one proposal being that it merely meant that the couple would split while legally remaining married. However recent discoveries have found that legal avenues for divorce certainly existed at the time in question. One of the clearest pieces of evidence is a divorce record from 111 AD, entirely coincidentally between a couple named Mary and Joseph, which was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Greek word here translated as divorce is aphiemi, and the only other time it appears is in 1 Corinthians 7:11 where Paul uses it to describe the legal separation of a man and wife, and thus almost all modern translators today feel that divorce is what is being described, although doctrinal reasons cause some to use other wording.
Image:The Dream of Saint Joseph.jpg Rabbinic law from the period allows two different options for divorce that is due to adultery:
- Bring the matter to the village council, which would hold a hearing and, if the allegations were proved, grant a divorce.
- Have the evidence presented and approved by two witnesses who would then certify the divorce (Gundry argues that the witnesses were necessary mainly to prevent a woman denying that the divorce had actually taken place.).
Joseph is explained as choosing to put Mary away privately rather than publicly divorce her, which most scholars believe means that Joseph had taken the second of the two divorce options.
In the first of several dream sequences in Matthew, an angel visits Joseph to dissuade him, and explain what has happened. The angel is described in a manner much more like early Jewish descriptions, as in the pentateuch, merely as a pure functionary with no individuality, unlike the more esoteric descriptions that arose nearer Matthew's own time, under Hellenic influence, such as described in the Book of Enoch. Joseph carries out the angel's instructions exactly, rather than arguing with them, which appears to be a common theme in the Gospel - rapid and unquestioning obedience is treated by Matthew as an important virtue.
Visitors
Deriving from the account of the Gospel of Matthew, there is a traditional depiction of three wise men from the east visiting the event, bearing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Though wise men or kings is the traditional understanding, the Bible actually refers to Magi, the Persian caste that were priests of a form of the Zoroastrian religion, and while three is their traditional number, this simply derives from the three gifts, as the bible merely states that there were plural Magi. The men were said to be following a mysterious star, commonly known as the Star of Bethlehem, that had suddenly appeared in the sky, believing it to be the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, or king of the Jews. This is somewhat unlikely to be historic, however, since although Zoroastrians were widely known at the time for their reputation in astrology and wisdom, they were not in any way Jewish.
On the other hand, Luke's account does not mention the Magi, instead having Jesus being visited by local shepherds, who had been informed in the night by an angel (herald) who said "Don't be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people, for there is born to you, this day, in the city of David, a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This is the sign to you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes (strips of cloth), lying in a manger (feeding trough)." After this an innumerable company of angels appeared with the herald singing "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men." (see The First Noël). The shepherds went quickly to Bethlehem, finding the sign to be as the angel foretold, and subsequently publicised what they had witnessed throughout the area.
Immanuel
Image:St Joseph with the Infant Jesus by Guido Reni, c 1635.jpg Matthew 1:23 reproduces a quote from the Book of Isaiah (chapter 7 verse 14), which some ancient manuscripts of Matthew openly state is the origin. Rather than using the Masoretic text which forms the basis of most modern Christian Old Testaments, Matthew's quote matches the Septuagint instead. Matthew however twists the prophecy to make it apply to Jesus by altering one word - rather than using the phrase they shall name, it is changed to you shall name, making it Joseph who is meant to give Jesus the name Immanuel. The fact that he actually was given the name Jesus instead is usually dismissed by Christian apologists as being due to Immanuel being a title not a name, though almost all Jewish sources are certain that Immanuel was intended as a name not a mere title.
Scholars have other concerns with Matthew's reference to Isaiah. France, for instance, believes that it is far more likely that Isaiah is referring to the far more immediate future, particularly as the text can be considered to be past tense - implying that the saviour in question was already conceived when Isaiah was writing. Matthew also appears to have adjusted the meaning slightly, but in a significant way - although Matthew uses the Greek term parthenos, usually translated virgin, Isaiah uses the Hebrew word almah, which more accurately translates as young woman.
The purpose of the quote is better understood by looking at the context in which it is used in Isaiah. Isaiah is in the process of promising that God can save Israel from the immediate threat of the Assyrians, but that if the Jews continue to sin, the Assyrian empire will be the instrument of God's vengeance. Hence, in the eyes of scholars such as Carter, Matthew is using the situation as an allegory for the time in which he was writing; if followed, Immanuel would lead to salvation from the Roman empire, but if rebuffed, Rome will be the instrument of punishment against the Jewish people.
Textual criticism
Most Christians merge the two accounts together, and so the traditional depiction involves the trek of the Magi, and their gifts, followed by the arrival of the shepherds. Textual critics on the other hand frequently treat the two accounts as quite different, and contradictory, documents, either deriving from independent sources, known as [M source|M]] and L respectively, or just invented completely by Matthew and Luke. According to the majority-supported theory of Markan Priority, the other two synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke) are based on Mark, but the nativity is noticeably absent from Mark's account, leading many scholars to see each nativity account as an invention created to suit the respective purposes of Matthew and Luke.
Art
Image:KellsFol034rChiRhoMonogram.jpg
In Insular Gospel Books (i.e. copies of the Gospels produced in Britain under Celtic Christianity), Matthew 1:18, the beginning of Matthew's nativity narrative, was treated as if it began a whole new book of the Bible. In mediaeval typography, the Greek word Christ was sometimes abbreviated as XPi (Chi-Rho-Iota; the first three letters of the word Christ in the Greek alphabet), and so the XPi which began Matthew 1:18 was given an elaborate decorative treatment by such scribes, who had a similar tradition for the opening few words of each of the Gospels. This trend culminated in the Book of Kells, where the monogram has taken over the entire page. Although later scribes (such as those of the Carolingian Renaissance) followed the Insular tradition of giving elaborate decorative treatments to the opening words of texts, including the Gospels, they did not follow the tradition of decoration this verse.
See also
References
- Albright, W.F. and C.S. Mann. "Matthew." The Anchor Bible Series. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971.
- Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977.
- Calkins, Robert G. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1983.
- Carter, Warren. Matthew and Empire. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001.
- France, R.T. The Gospel According to Matthew: an Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985.
- Gundry, Robert H. Matthew a Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.
- Gundry, Robert H. "Salvation in Matthew." Society of Biblical Literature - 2000 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
- Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981
- Jones, Alexander. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1965.
- Levine, Amy-Jill. "Matthew." Women's Bible Commentary. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, eds. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
- Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975
External links
fr:Nativité it:Natività nl:Geboorte van Jezus volgens Lukas 2 sv:Nativitet