It is Christmas Day so please excuse a post out of sequence. Jesus was not born on December 25th, and there are no ancient records that say so. Christian meaning was given to a former pagan midwinter festival when the Roman Empire became nominally Christian. We still put up conifers. Nevertheless, if we do not know an actual date of birth, celebrating it sometime might seem reasonable. Buddha's birthday has attracted a similar legendary story. Two Gospels, Matthew and Luke, thought so anyway. Each give Jesus a similar family tree, from Joseph his father to Adam. In Luke, the probably later addition of "as was supposed" to this paternity renders the whole exercise absurd - if Joseph was not his father, this was not his family tree. That God took responsibility for this special birth need not preclude human reproductive processes. Matthew was a little over-enthusiastic in insisting that Mary was a virgin to fit in with his mistranslation of an Isaiah prophecy, "A virgin shall conceive" (for the original "a young woman shall conceive"). Jesus fulfils Zoroastrian prophecy also: the Magi come running. Yet even Matthew gives Joseph's family tree. The date of birth is linked in the story to a census at the time of the governor Quirinius, which was in 6 AD/CE. The Herod was therefore a son of Herod the Great (died 4BCE) such as Herod Antipas. The purpose of Matthew's birth narrative is to prove that Jesus fulfilled so-called prophecies of the Messiah. Luke attempted to link Jesus with John the Baptist and is equally tendentious. If Luke based his account on first hand sources, they have glorified the event in their memory. It is however more likely to be a folk story, a tale invented by the early Christian community.
None of this devalues Jesus as a thinker, teacher and moral authority. We have to argue those potential contribitions separately. Important figures encourage legend.
No comments:
Post a Comment