There comes a time in the life of any young boy when the magic of the festive season is reduced to an ill-fitting pair of socks and a Tupperware container of leftovers. It is the childhood moment when the whole Christmas-Santa-Reindeer thing suddenly implodes, crumpling into nothingness like a used party hat. Frosty the Snowman cartoons lose their mystery and the significance of carols becomes questionable when that sniffling fat kid at school tells you that the whole Christmas story is a myth.
The road to adulthood not only brings resentment at the sight of Christmas joy in the face of young children, it unloads the burdensome realisation that the whole celebration is one big cynical sales pitch that starts earlier and earlier with every passing year. Yet, as you elbow your way out of a crowded shopping centre on Christmas Eve, that little wooden nativity scene on the street corner gives some conciliation that, once upon a time, this December day was not about consumerism and credit card debt – it celebrated the birth of a special baby boy.
Sadly, this is just another serving of bullshit mince pies.
Without hesitation, mums and dads tell their children that Santa is real – retrofitting the reindeer courier story with pseudo-scientific explanations to keep up with a barrage of ever-probing questions. The story of Jesus’ birth – known to believers and non-believers alike – was constructed in exactly the same way and is as much of a myth as Rudolf’s sex-toy workshop ever was. But what about the census? The baby in the Bethlehem manger? The three wise men? All baubles I’m afraid.
Mmmm, sacrelicious...
Two of the gospels mention the birth of Jesus, Matthew and Luke. Both of them tell a similar tale, but make enough mistakes to suggest the whole nativity story was conceived to tie up loose ends. Jesus was big on fulfilling prophecies. The Book of Micah foretold the messiah would come from the house of David and be born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke went to great lengths to show that Jesus was descended from the Goliath-killing King David; the problem being his name was Jesus of Nazareth, not Bethlehem. An oppressive Roman census was the solution.
After comparing their stories, clearly the two gospel writers relied on Wikipedia as much as your author. Luke asserts that the Roman Governor in Syria, Quirinius, issued the census while Matthew says that Jesus was born during the reign of Jewish king, Herod the Great. Ancient historians like Josephus support Quirinius issuing a census in Syria in 6AD, however Herod died nine years earlier in 4BC. In addition, there is nothing to suggest in Roman records that people had to migrate back to their town of origin during a census or whether client kingdoms, like Judea at the time, were included in censuses at all.
These discoveries are nothing new and, like parents patching up the holes in the Santa Claus story, scholars have attempted to explain away the creative application of history employed by the gospel writers. Like most biblical errors however, centuries of dispute is preferable to admitting that that Jesus of Nazareth might be Jesus of Nazareth. In perspective, this is nothing compared to the Christian takeover of a pagan festival to subdue a recently converted populace. That, my friends, is a slow-boiled pudding best saved for next Christmas.
Sacrelicious.
ReplyDelete