| It’s become a seasonal complaint that rampant consumerism and an over-developed sense of multiculturalism have, between them, all but eroded the "true" Christian meaning of Christmas.
On the one hand, stores large and small depend on the festive shopping frenzy either for their annual profit or simply to break even. On the other hand, despite the fact that more than 75 per cent of Canadians still regard themselves as Christians, those same stores take care not to offend the nation’s sizable Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh populations — as well as the 5 million or so who profess no faith at all — by substituting "Happy Holiday" and "Season’s Greetings" for "Merry Christmas."
This is understandable, given that the Christian church enjoys no special or official status in Canada. But even where it does, the same trend has prevailed. Over the last decade or so, public schools in England have moved away from celebrating the end of term with traditional nativity plays, in which 7-year-olds re-enact the birth of Jesus. Instead, they have opted for multi-faith celebrations. And even where the nativity drama is still staged, often the focus is less potentially offensive subplots, such as the guiding star or the innkeeper who offered Mary and Joseph his stable.
In itself, the fate of the nativity play hardly matters. As one parent recently suggested, "It’s done for the sake of a nice photograph, with no thought for the religious message behind it." Yet for many of the faithful, its decline is symptomatic of a more worrying secularization. "Christmas is one of the central Christian celebrations and the Nativity is an integral part of that celebration," another parent argued. "In a true multi-faith or multi-cultural environment, how can you ignore one of the most important events in the Christian calendar?"
But here is the heart of the problem. Many if not most of those who lament the watering-down of the nativity story regard the fabled events that it describes as both the historical record of Jesus’s birth and the spiritual cornerstone of their faith. Neither of these beliefs, however, is quite that straightforward.
All known details of the birth of Jesus — the Immaculate Conception, Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem, the manger scene, visits from the kings and shepherds — derive from the two gospels of Matthew and Luke. The first of these is commonly attributed to one of the original apostles, but biblical scholars are now unanimous in rejecting Matthew’s claim to authorship. Instead, the anonymous account was probably written at some point between 60 and 100 AD, long after the events it describes, and borrows heavily from the earlier gospel of Mark. The gospel of Luke also draws upon Mark, although to a lesser extent, and is similarly dated to 75 to 100 AD, though some scholars have suggested a date as early as 60 AD.
Leaving aside the date and identity of authorship, these two sources provide tantalizingly little and sometimes conflicting accounts of Jesus’s birth. Matthew devotes just two chapters – a total of 28 verses – to the subject. Luke provides a more detailed account, spanning more than 100 verses. Yet neither mentions a date or even a season for the event – the choice of December 25 would not be made for another 300 years. They do agree that it occurred some time during the reign of Herod the Great (King of Judea, c. 37 to 1 BC), and both gospels also trace Jesus’s genealogy back through King David (r. 1011 to 971 BC) all the way back to Abraham.
Finally, there is consensus on the crucial matter of divine insemination. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," Luke quotes angel Gabriel telling Mary, "and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Matthew is a little more matter-of-fact in his version. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise," he reports. "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Other details of the story are less clear, however. Take the three kings. Matthew describes "wise men" who came "from the east to Jerusalem," asking Herod, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." Herod, understandably troubled by this "King of the Jews" revelation, ordered the men to locate the infant Jesus and report back so that he might "come and worship him also." Instead, the wise men deliver their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, and upon "being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod… departed into their own country another way."
Just who were these "wise men"? And how many were there? The Bible mentions no specific number. The idea that there were three likely stems from the gifts they brought with them, as if each man were responsible for one specific present. By the 8th century AD, western Christianity had come to identify these men as Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, names found on a 6th-century Greek manuscript held in Alexandria.
The term "wise men" itself is rather vague, first used by translators of the 1611 King James version of the Bible. However, the original term used was magi (plural of magus), a Latinized form of the Greek word magos, which in turn can be traced back to the Old Persian word Magupati. This word referred to a specific branch of ancient Zoroastrians known as Zurvanites, famed among other things for their skill in mathematics and astrology.
On this basis, then, the wisdom of these men lay primarily in their ability to navigate the Judean desert by night.
So much for the basic story. When did it become the cornerstone of Christian faith? Not right away, that’s for sure. During the early centuries of Christianity, various rival sects engaged each other in fierce and sometimes violent debate over the details of Jesus’ birth. Apollinarians denied that Mary was Jesus’ mother. Cerinthians and Ebionites claimed that Joseph was the true father of Jesus. Antidocomarians insisted on the virgin conception but rejected the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
In short, the nativity that Hollywood is currently attempting to revive may be a great story, but it is neither reliable history nor unifying mythology. "Traditionalists" who lament its passing from their children’s schools might hesitate before demanding its restoration. |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.