IMAGINE the MANGER

Spoiler Alert: Not Your Parents' Manger Scene.

I've been wondering what seems to be missing from the manger scenes that I see everywhere this season, and I've finally put my finger on it: there's no children! Or if there is, it will be one child who happens to be part of a group of adoring shepherds.

I went searching for a depiction of children at the manger and found only this one above. It's not great, but it's still touching. The manger, ox, Mary & Joseph, and baby Jesus are all credible first century depictions. But the child-angels at crib-side?

If Mary had seen angels and told Luke about it, he surely would have included that in his Gospel. My theory on this picture is that the three center children are from 1950's USA and are being given a tour of the manger scene. The angels are holding them by the hand because they will soon conduct them back to 1950 where their clothes will fit the era. Mary and Joseph do not see them.

So you ask, "Why should there be children in a manger scene?"

What Should Be in a Manger Scene?

While I was searching and wondering, out of the blue my new fb friend Jeab posted this one. It's incomplete, of course, but it's a very good start. First of all, it starts with a cave as a backdrop. I quote from the 1999 Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs (p.421):

In the second century a tradition existed that Jesus' birth had occurred in a certain cave that had been behind the inn. ... The argument that the traditional cave [seen today by tourists] is too small to be used as a stable is not very strong because its present divisions into sections is misleading.  ...  [Emperor Constantine] ordered construction in AD 326 of a church over the revered cave. ... The present Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem stands over [the] cave which has been revered since the second century as the birthplace of Jesus. It may indeed be the place where Jesus was born.

Now as to the sheep: It is unthinkable that the shepherds who heard from the band of angels would drive their flock into the cave where Mary was sheltering her new-born son. Plus, the hosting town-dwellers (or innkeepers) were not shepherds themselves and would not have had sheep except perhaps a male lamb which had been purchased to sacrifice at the annual Passover observance. But if the visiting shepherds had a very young lamb which had been orphaned, they might have carried it in with them to protect it. On the other hand, the presence of one or more goats is a distinct possibility, to provide milk for the town-dwellers (or for the guests at the inn).

A single donkey is often seen in manger scenes. It is presumably the donkey that Mary rode from Nazareth to Bethlehem. It has been argued that the donkey was unnecessary because a healthy young pregnant women of the day could have walked the distance with little problem. Never having been nine months pregnant, I cannot venture an opinion on whether walking or riding a donkey would be more uncomfortable in that condition. I do know that my oldest son was born ten weeks premature because his mother insisted on driving alone from Phoenix to Miami. She made it as far as San Antonio. So I can attest that travelling great distances when very pregnant is fraught with danger.

The ox so often seen implies that Mary and family have not arrived on the premises of an innkeeper, but rather that of a townsperson who owns a plot of farmland outside town, and needs the ox to pull the plow. I suppose there were other uses for oxen, such as pulling a merchant's cart.

Sometimes I see dogs and cats in manger scenes. The dog I can vouch for, because surely shepherds had sheep dogs in use to control their flocks. Cats I'm not so sure of. When Mary and family get to Egypt they will find cats commonly domesticated. But in Palestine, I don't know if any traces of domesticated cats have been found by archaeologists.

Of course, the biggest no-no is to show both shepherds and Magi ("wise men)" in a manger scene. The Magi did not arrive until well after the birth, perhaps as long as two years later, while the shepherds were there within a day of Jesus' birth.

And now to children.

Christmas is about children, starting with the child Jesus. In our days, that is even more true. The exchange of gifts among adults can hardly lay a candle beside the wondrous eyes of children as they arise on Christmas. Just like Passover, children belong in the Christmas scene. Like Passover, it gives us an opportunity to teach them about what God has done in their lives, and who Jesus really is.

We started out at the top by affirming a second-century tradition that Jesus was born in a cave. Another well-attested second century tradition is that the four brothers and two or three sisters of Jesus were the children of a previous marriage by Joseph. Three apocryphal documents of the second century refer to Joseph's elder children as if everyone already knew that as fact. 

Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph at the time of the angel's appearance to her. I believe that the two were married shortly after Joseph became aware of Mary's pregnancy. Small-town residents know how to count nine months very well, and even an immediate marriage would spark whispered rumors.

With up to seven children, there is a very good chance that the youngest was an infant or toddler. In fact childbirth was a not uncommon cause of death among women of the first century, and the combination of a new baby without a mother would have pushed Joseph inexorably toward a second marriage. While he would have had to employ a wet-nurse at first, Mary's first tasks as a new bride would have included mothering infants and toddlers.

The oldest child of Jesus was probably James, who later became known as James the Just and was the leader of the church in Jerusalem after Jesus's crucifixion. If his siblings were spaced two years apart, as was common, James would be over 14 years old at the birth of Jesus. His new stepmother Mary would have been barely a year or two older that he. Imagine the issues that may have arisen in this  blended family!

In any case, it's likely that Jesus' older stepbrothers and stepsisters were present at the manger scene. If James were 14, he would have been considered an adult, required to register for the poll tax just as Joseph was. The youngest may have been barely one year old.

And think of Mary. We admire Mary for her submission to the call of God on her life, to birth the savior of the world and brave the scandal of conceiving a child without having been married. I admire her also for her acceptance of this challenging new job of managing a large family of children while Joseph earned his living as a construction worker.

Perhaps Mary came from a large family as well. In any case, the Christmas story is as much about Mary as about Jesus, for this young woman stepped in and did what was needed in obedience to a loving God.

I love this picture of Mary's family in a cave. The children are attentive in case there is anything that needs to be done to help. And Mary is blessed not only by God, but also by her husband and step-children.

Hail, Mary, full of grace.

Was Bethsaida Actually the Pagan City of Julias?

The answer is No... and Yes.

But first we need to know more about Livia Julia, Herod Philip, and what year it is.

The Sea of Galilee seen from Bethsaida.

Livia Drusilla Julia Augustus

That's a mouthful for a name, and there's a complex story of how she got it. Her birth name was Livia and her father was Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus, a senator of the Roman Republic in the first century BC. "Drusilla" is a diminutive for Drusus. She was born about 58 BC, and was married about 43 BC to Tiberius Claudius Nero, her cousin of patrician status who was fighting alongside Julius Caesar and Mark Antony against Octavian. In 42 BC she gave birth to the future emperor Tiberius and then a second son. But she ended up on the wrong side of that war when Octavian prevailed as part of the new Triumvirate ruling Rome, and she fled with her family to Sicily.

When peace came and an amnesty was declared, Livia returned to Rome with her first son (pregnant with her second), and was personally introduced to Octavian in 39 BC. Legend has it that Octavian fell instantly in love with her, despite the fact that both he and Livia were already married. He immediately divorced his pregnant wife and persuaded or forced Livia's husband to divorce her. Within days, he married Livia, with her ex-husband giving her in marriage as if he were her father. (Important political liaisons between patrician families may be a more rational explanation for these actions.)

The rest of the Triumvirate fell away, and Octavian was left as sole emperor. He took for himself the honor-title of Augustus. Livia and Augustus remained married for the next 51 years. However, they had no children of their own, which caused a problem in accession to the Roman throne. Augustus solved that by adopting Livia's two sons, making them successors to power in Rome. Augustus died in AD 14 and was made a god by the senate. In his  will, Augustus adopted Livia into the Julian family and gave her the honor-title of Augusta. Thus her new name became Julia Augusta.

Julia was portrayed as a woman of proud and queenly attributes, faithful and skillful as consort, mother, and later widow and dowager. She was a prime recipient of the emperor-adulation cultivated by Augustus, and became the idealization of Roman feminine qualities and eventually a goddess-like representation of virtue. She was the first woman to appear on Roman coins, and her coins may be dated by her hairstyles, which kept up with the times. She didn't wear excess jewelry or pretentious costumes, took care of the household and her husband (even to the extent of making his clothes), faithful and dedicated. In 35 BC Augustus gave her the honor of ruling her own finances and dedicated a public statue to her. She had her own protégés and clients that she pushed into political office, including the grandfathers of two later emperors. She was truly the "First Lady" of Rome, and an advisor to her emperor-husband.

At Augustus' death her son Tiberius became Emperor and before too long Julia became known as the power behind the throne. At first she and her son got along well. In AD 24 Tiberius granted his mother a theater seat among the Vestal Virgins. She exercised unofficial but very real power in Rome. Eventually Tiberius became resentful of his mother's political status, particularly the idea that his mother had given him the throne. Ancient historians say that Tiberius retired to the island of Capri because he could no longer endure his mother.

Julia died in AD 29 amid the scandal of her disaffection with her son. But later her honor was restored, and she was deified as The Divine Augusta. A statue of her was set up in the Temple of Augustus, races were held in her honor, and women were to invoke her  name in their sacred oaths.

Herod Antipas and Herod Philip

Philip was one of the sons of Herod the Great. Most of Herod's family were sent to Rome for their education and for learning the ways and political habits of the Romans. Two of his sons came to special prominence: Herod Antipas and Herod Philip, both of whom came into power about 4 BC at the death of their father.

Herod Antipas is the biblical Herod that interacted with Jesus and with John the Baptist. He was the tetrarch (ruler of a quarter) of Galilee on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee, and Perea on the east bank of the Dead Sea. He ruled for about 42 years.

Antipas' most noted construction was a capital city for Galilee, on the shore of its sea. He named it Tiberias to honor his patron Tiberius, who succeeded as emperor of Rome in 14 AD. Warm bathing springs were nearby, and the city included a stadium, palace, and prayer sanctuary. However, Jews at first refused to live in it because it was built over an ancient graveyard, and Antipas had to bring in foreigners, forced migrants, poor people, and freed slaves to populate it. The city lent its name to the adjoining lake, and for centuries maps showed the Lake of Tiberias rather than the Sea of Galilee.

Herod Philip is mentioned in the Bible only at Luke 3:4. There he is identified as the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, which lay to the north and east of the Sea of Galilee and included the fishing town of Bethsaida. He never used the family title "Herod" to refer to himself. About AD 34 he married Salomé, the famous dancing girl involved in the death of John the Baptist, and he died before AD 37.

Philip's most noted construction was his Greek-style modernization of Caesarea Philippi, to which he gave his own name so as to differentiate if from Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast. In AD 30 he renamed Bethsaida to Julias, in honor of the mother of Emperor Tiberius, and gave it the title of a Roman polis. There he had begun Greek-style modernization with the building of a stadium and other structures. Some Christian reference materials say that he named it Julias in honor of a certain daughter of Augustus, but this is incorrect. It is also said that he used the name Julias to curry favor with Rome, which is possible. But we must also remember that Philip was educated in Rome during the reign of Augustus with his consort Julia and he may well have been impressed with that particularly formidable woman.

Bethsaida: What Year Is This, Anyway?

Now we are armed with enough background material to tackle the question at hand: was Bethsaida a sleepy little Jewish fishing town with a synagogue, or a bustling Greek-style city with a pagan temple?

Bethsaida was home to five apostles—far more than any other New Testament town. And it was the target of Jesus’ “Woe” saying in which he lashes out at Bethsaida and two other towns for their failure to repent (Matthew 11:21). But where was Bethsaida?

Archeologists conducted digs at three mounds near the Galilee’s northern shore. Only one had ruins old enough to be biblical Bethsaida. The State of Israel and many scholars accepted this identification, though some controversy lingers, for the mound lies a mile from the shoreline.

But here they uncovered a fisherman’s house that was used in Jesus’s day. They also unearthed the walls of a 20- by 65-foot building. Was it a synagogue? To judge by other finds, Bethsaida was a majority Jewish town. But this structure had no benches or other hallmarks of an early synagogue.

Instead, the archaeologists discovered evidence of pagan worship: bronze incense shovels like those found in Roman temples and votive objects in the shape of boat anchors and grape clusters. Also they found terra-cotta figurines of a woman who resembled Julia, the wife of the Roman Emperor Augustus and mother of Tiberius, who came to the throne in the year AD 14.

It didn’t make sense. The Romans did regard their rulers as both human and divine, worshiping them as deities. But Herod the Great and his son Antipas didn’t build pagan structures in Judea or Galilee, and they kept their faces off the local coins.

However, Bethsaida lay northeast of the Galilee border in a region that was home to gentile villages and ruled by another of Herod’s sons, Philip, the only Jew of that time to put his face on a coin. In the year 30 Philip dedicated Bethsaida to Julia, who had died the year before.

Did he build a pagan temple to the emperor’s mother? Jews lived here. Did their ruler Philip, himself a Jew, erect a temple to a Roman goddess in their very midst? And did he do so in the same period when Jesus was visiting Bethsaida? A writer for Smithsonian thinks that was possible (see link below). Did some of the fishermen—such as Peter, Andrew, Philip, James and John—look at that pagan temple and say, “Enough!”? Did Jesus come along, offering what looked like a clearer path back to God?

There is a slight timing problem with this thinking: Jesus’ ministry most likely took place in the three or four years before AD 30, and John the Baptist had already been killed by then. I find it unlikely that Philip would have built this temple before dedicating the town to Julia. But even without the temple, it might be possible that adulation of the exemplary character of Julia had spread this far from Rome many years before Jesus began his ministry.

In any case, the infusion of pagan culture into Jewish territory was a distinct problem for the time of the disciples, and while sleepy little Nazareth was off by itself, some six miles from a major pagan town, Bethsaida was at the bulls-eye of a planned city where pagans would be moving in next door to Jewish fishermen.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/#qmphwsBYeKhtPufU.99

Are there Terrorists in the Bible?

Did New Testament People Experience Terrorism?

Centuries before there was an Assassin's Guild in the Middle East or mercenary Ninjas in Japan, there was a society of Terrorists which began its life among Jews in the vicinity of Palestine. In Latin they were called Sycarii (dagger-men). They are thought to have been a subset of the better-known Zealots, one of whom was an Apostle of Jesus, who struggled against the Roman overlords. The origin of the Zealots and their murderous cousins, the Sycarii, traces back to the political turmoil in Judea in the year AD 6.

Israel and the Romans

First, some background: After shaking off their Greek overlords, post-exile Israel became a more-or-less independent kingdom with the blessing of Rome. In AD 63 the Roman general Pompey intervened in their civil war by conquering Jerusalem, and appointed Hrycanus II as high priest. Then in AD 41 Mark Antony, who had been one of Julius Caesar's generals, appointed Herod the Great and his brother as client kings over the region. Yet another civil war saw Herod the Great go to Rome and be appointed as king to restore Hyrcanus II to the high priesthood.

Herod ruled until 4 BC, and at his death the Romans divided his kingdom among four of his children. Herod Archelaus became "ethnarch" of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (biblical Edom). But Archelaus was over his head as administrator and was removed by the Romans in AD 6. Judea and Samaria were not to have a king, but instead were placed under a series of "prefects' (governors) appointed from Rome.

Judas the Galilean

AD 6 was a troubled time for the Jews. Not only had they lost their status as a client kingdom, but also a "census" had been declared, which meant that every person was going to be taxed. Using Roman money. With "graven images." Many Jews took exception to that, and some were incensed, vowing that they would never touch "unclean" Roman money. They became known as "zealots" for the Law of Moses.

Judas the Galilean took violent exception, and led a fierce revolt in which he was killed and his followers were scattered (Acts 5:37) as far as Egypt and Syria. Although Judas led the rebellion, he would not be classed as a terrorist, for his targets were the Roman overlords, which the Jews viewed as an occupying force in their native land. But at least 2,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans as punishment for supporting the rebellion, not to mention those that died in combat against the Roman army.

There was little that the survivors could do in retaliation. It is thought that the Jews boycotted the purchase of Roman pottery about this time, because the characteristic red clay pottery of Rome disappears from Palestine archaeological sites after AD 6.

The Sicarii

Clearly this was an unacceptable result for many. The Zealots remained as a recognized group, and were marked as strict adherents to the Law of Moses who would refuse to handle Roman money. But the more violent revolutionaries went underground, and began carrying concealed daggers.

The Sicarii's targets were primarily other Jews considered to be collaborators with the Romans, or quiescent in the face of Roman rule. They attacked Jewish notables and elites associated with the priesthood, whom they considered as benefitting from the overlords.

During festivals they would mingle with the crowds, and stab their enemies with their short daggers. When their victims fell, they would join in the cries of indignation and pretend to be helping to find the perpetrators, thus avoiding detection themselves. I consider that since their violence was politically motivated rather than military action against Roman soldiers, they may aptly be called terrorists.

Some Bible commentators have alleged that Judas, Man of Kerioth (Jesus' betrayer), was a Sicari. I find this unlikely. First, Judas was assigned the task of carrying the money purse, which would have included Roman coins with images on them--a task which would have been anathema to a zealot or a sicari. And second, Judas betrayed Jesus by collaborating with the priestly class at Jerusalem, the very people-group who were bitterly opposed by the sicarii.

These terrorists are mentioned in the Bible once  at Acts 22:38, when Paul is arrested by the Roman commander of the Jerusalem garrison. He says to Paul, "Do you know Greek? Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Sicarion out into the wilderness?" (Sicarion is the Greek plural for dagger-bearers. Your Bible may translate this as "assassins.")

One or two terrorists is scary enough. This Roman commander speaks of having to deal with four thousand of them at one time. And yes, there are terrorists in the Bible.

Did Jesus have Younger Brothers?

Did Joseph and Mary birth four more sons and two or three daughters?

In the Protestant world, Jesus' mother had more kids.

This idea drives the Catholic world nuts. They hold to the long-standing tradition that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a virgin after Jesus' birth. But academics and most protestants follow a more literalist reading of the Bible. How did we get into such a place as this?

Tanker-loads of ink have been spilled over this discussion, which began in earnest in the fourth century AD. I will try to stick to the basics, then present the view I follow, supported in part by a respected Bible scholar in England.

The Helvidian View:

Helvidius was a writer who penned an opinion prior to AD 383 that Joseph and Mary had additional children after the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus. He supported his opinion by the "solid evidence" of the Biblical mentions of "sisters" and "brothers" of Jesus. He cited support for his view from the writings of Tertullian (AD 155-240), a prolific author sometimes called the Father of Latin Christianity; and also from writings of Saint Victorinus of Pettau (AD 270).

This view was resurrected by the reformers after Martin Luther, who maintained that the language of the Bible concerning brothers and sisters of Jesus trumped the traditional western Catholic view. Their view has also been supported in the academic realm, at least from the mid-1850's through the present.

The Heironymian View

Saint Jerome (Latin Hieronymus, AD 347-420) was upset by Helvidius' view, for he and other Fathers of the Church held that Mary mother of Jesus remained a virgin throughout her life. Jerome proposed that the "brothers" and "sisters" were actually cousins of Jesus, and through his influence this became the traditional western Catholic view.

Scholars complained vociferously about this. If Jesus' relatives were step-brothers or half-brothers or adopted brothers, the Greek language lacked a specific word for the relationship, and "brothers" would have to do. But if they were cousins, there is a perfectly good Greek word for that, anepsios, which Paul deploys for the relationship between Barnabas and John Mark (Col. 4:10).

Part of the defense of this view depends on the relationships between the followers of Jesus present at the crucifixion, identifying a "Mary" there as mother of James and Joses, common names which recur in the list of Jesus' brothers. This Mary is then identified as the wife of one Cleopas deemed to be the same as Alpheus, two Greek names which purportedly arise from the same Aramaic original name. Recent scholarship has found a different Aramaic name which is the more likely root word from which Cleopas is derived, casting doubt on the identification of these two names referring to the same person.

The Epiphanian View

Around the same time as all this, one Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (AD 315-403) promoted a third theory. The Epiphanian view is that these brothers and sisters were children of Joseph by a marriage prior to his marriage to Mary. This is also the traditional view in Eastern Orthodox churches. The idea that Joseph was already advanced in age by the time he married Mary had some currency in the early Church.

New Support for Epiphanius

As a scholar specializing on the book of Jude I take special interest in the brothers of Jesus. The title "Jude" does not occur in the original Greek of the New Testament. Instead, Jude verse one has the real name Judas, which has been softened in English because of the scandal of Judas of Kerioth, the betrayer of Jesus. The writer of the book identifies himself as a brother of James, no doubt meaning James the brother of Jesus.

The names of Jesus' brothers, then,  are James, Joseph/Joses, Simon, and Jude/Judas, all quite common names in New Testament Palestine. Two out of the four brothers have written books of the Bible. Names of Jesus' sisters come from later tradition as Mary, Salome, and possibly Anna. Matthew and Mark attest to all four brothers by name. All four gospels refer to the brothers of Jesus, while Matthew and Mark mention the sisters. Paul in his letters refers to Jesus' brothers twice:

James Bauckham, professor of New Testament and prolific author, has written a journal article (Themelios 21.2, January 1996: 18-21.) and a book (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 1990) on this subject. He finds that for the first two centuries of the Church, the idea that Jesus' siblings were offspring of Joseph by a previous marriage was taken for granted.

These are "apocryphal" documents, meaning they are not accepted for inclusion in the Bible. Some apocryphal documents were written to support theological inventions that had been rejected, such as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. This was written to promote the "gnostic" theology that had arisen primarily in Egypt. It may have been influential in the choice of the word "catholic" (received by all) to defend the early mainline church that fostered western Catholicism and eastern Orthodoxy.

Other early Christian apocrypha was written primarily for its entertainment value. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is surely such a document. It is a fanciful piece of fiction that tries to show what the infancy and childhood of Jesus may have been like. One of my favorite pieces of fiction from the third century AD is the first chapter of The Acts of Thomas, in which Jesus appears and commands Thomas to evangelize in India. Thomas resists, saying "Send me somewhere else!"  Jesus then talks to a boat captain, who then comes over to talk to Thomas, saying "Is that your master over there?" Thomas says yes, and the captain says, "Well, he just sold you to me, and you're going with me to India."

Like some of these early Christian writers, I am writing historical fiction, but I start with the facts as found in the Bible, and go on to fill in the unknown blanks, such as, "Why is John Zebedee down by the Jordan calling himself a disciple of the Baptist instead of back at home fishing with his father?"

And Jesus' brothers and sisters? I found Bauckham's arguments persuasive. He concludes that both the Helvidian and Epiphanian views are acceptable solutions to the sibling questions, and both of them are in concordance with the rest of the Bible evidence. For myself, I follow the latter view, that Jesus' siblings were the progeny of a previous marriage. I build on that with the possibility that his first wife died after her sixth or seventh child, possibly in childbirth, and Joseph needed a new wife to take care of the babies.

If these kinds of things interest you, dear reader, you may want to read one of my books. The series on the teenage John Zebedee has already started and can be found by punching my name into Amazon.