I read this article and I say "so what". We who follow Jesus know that most of the bible stories are not literal. We do not need literal stories to believe that Jesus is the way. We need only to turn within ourselves to know that loving others, supporting the less fortunate, seeking justice of all beings (this is what his message was) is what allows us to live our personal lives with hope and peace and hence it is the way. Reading and understanding that the bible is not necessarily an historical and factual account could never dilute or change the message of compassion.

Debunking the Crèche Tableau By Jim Senyszyn

Modern scholarship shows that the story of Jesus being born in a stable in Bethlehem is a myth. For instance, A. N. Wilson in the introduction of his book Jesus a Life writes that (page ix), “nearly all the details of the nativity scenes which have inspired great artists, and delighted generations of churchgoers on Christmas Eve, stem neither from history nor from Scripture, but from folklore.” Jesus born in a house, not in a stable In Matthew 2:11, the wise men from the east go to Bethlehem and find Mary and her baby in a house. Rev. John P. Meier in volume one of his book A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, which has the imprimatur seal of approval of the Roman Catholic Church, says (page 211), “The Magi find Mary and Jesus when they enter ‘into the house’, not into a stable or cave.” According to Wilson (page 80), “Luke (2:16) says that Mary laid her first-born son in a manger since there was no place (topos) in the kataluma. This is a Greek word which more often means room than inn. Luke never states that Mary and Joseph were...obliged to sleep that night in a stable. He merely says that the particular room in which Jesus was born did not have a cradle in it. One is presumably meant to understand that someone improvised, bringing a feeding-box for animals into the room, as a substitute for a cradle. Jesus born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem John 1:45-6 insists Jesus does come from Nazareth, and John 7:42 very specifically implies that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. Wilson says (page ix), “Once we go into the matter, we discover that the real Jesus, the Jesus of History, is extremely unlikely to have been born in Bethlehem. It is much more probable that he was born in Galilee, where he grew up.” Meier notes (pages 211-213), “More difficult to harmonize are the two differing accounts of the journeys of Joseph and Mary in the two Infancy Narratives and the two ‘geographical’ plots at the basis of the two stories...Matthew’s basic geographical plot in his Infancy Narrative moves from original home in Bethlehem to adopted home in Nazareth (necessary for political reasons), Luke’s plot moves in the opposite direction: from original home in Nazareth to temporary stay – hardly a home – in Bethlehem (necessary for political reasons), and then back to ‘their original home’ in Nazareth.” At least a decade discrepancy in dates of Jesus’ birth Luke 2:2 dates the nativity to the time of a Roman census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and Matthew 2:1 dates it when Herod was King of Judea. Wilson notes (page 75) that, “Herod’s reign lasted from 37 BCE until 4 BCE, and Quirinius was never the Governor of Syria during this period... Josephus, in his Antiquities, mentions a census in Judea in 6 CE.” Prof. John Dominic Crossan in his book The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant agrees with this criticism (page 372), “The Palestinian census was undertaken by the Syrian legate, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, in 6 to 7 CE, about a decade after the birth of Jesus.” Meier comments (page 212), “Luke’s solution is a worldwide census decreed by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria (2:1) – unfortunately, such a census (which would have had to occur ca. 5 BC) cannot be documented in any other ancient source. According to ancient records, Quirinius, who became governor of Syria in AD 6, conducted a census of Judea, but not of Galilee, in AD 6-7. Attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived.” Census counted people in place of domicile or work, not ancestry Prof. Crossan disputes the description of the Roman census given in Luke 2:1-7. He writes (page 372), “First there never was a worldwide census under Augustus.” Crossan observes that, “above all... the Roman custom was to count you in the place of your domicile or work and not in that of your ancestry or birth. That is little more than common sense. Census was for taxation; to record people in their ancestral rather than their occupational locations would have constituted a bureaucratic nightmare.” December 25 date adapted from pagan cult of Sol Invictus Luke 2:8 describes “shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Marcello Craveri in his book The Life of Jesus says (page 37), “The incident of the shepherds supports the supposition that the birth must have taken place in spring or autumn. During the winter, since the temperature falls well below freezing in Bethlehem and the rainy season lasts until March, animals cannot be left outdoors. In fact, until the fourth century the dates most commonly accepted for the birth of Jesus were March 28, April 18, and May 29.” Craveri goes on to explain, “But, in the West, special needs of adaptation to the environment caused the Church to set the date of the birth of Jesus as December 25. The fact is, it was necessary to replace the widespread pagan cult of Sol Invictus.” This was based on the astronomical winter solstice when days begin to get longer which gave rise to a sun festival and the cult of the sun-god Sol Invictus throughout the empire. According to Craveri, “Ultimately, Constantine I (306-37) was able, through his skillful political manipulations, to join the Christian symbols to those of the sun cult.” Jesus’ Davidic descent questionable The Nativity is located in Bethlehem, the city of David, to establish Jesus’ Davidic lineage. But Wilson notes (page 75), “the Fourth Gospel very specifically states (John 7:42) that Jesus was not born...of David’s line.” G.A. Wells in his book Did Jesus Exist? cites Mark 12:35-37 as (page 118), “a flat denial of the Messiah’s Davidic descent.” Craveri notes that (page 7), “We have not just one but two genealogies of Joseph, and hence of Jesus” which appear in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. The two genealogies differ widely. Craveri notes that, “from David to Joseph – not only are the names completely different in the two genealogies, but the number of them is also impossibly at variance. Luke, in fact, lists forty-one persons for that portion, while Matthew names only twenty-seven. Hence there is a discrepancy of fourteen generations, which, chronologically calculated, even if an average of only twenty-five or thirty years is assumed for each, amounts to a disparity of about four centuries.” Matthew’s reference to Isaiah erroneous Matthew 1:22-23 refers to Isaiah 7:14 as predicting the nativity. Wilson explains (pages 78-79), “The context of the ‘original prophecy’ was made to King Ahaz in the mid-eight century BCE. It was an assurance that the line of Ahaz would be continued in spite of Assyrian threats to Israel’s future... It would have been surprising if Isaiah, who lived 740 years before Jesus, had been thinking of Mary and her first-born son when he made his prophecy to King Ahaz. Even if he had, by some extraordinary gift of foresight, been doing so, he never denoted ...a virgin. The word almah means young woman, and simply that. Yet, even today, one hears this text from Isaiah being used by Christians as a proof ‘that Jesus was born of a Virgin’.”

-- Theo (Trc@aol.com), December 09, 2002

Answers

Theo, the article is rubbish.
I don't mean to attack you, but you have not reacted to it as a Catholic (or any other kind of Christian) should. You stated: "We who follow Jesus know that most of the bible stories are not literal. ... Reading and understanding that the bible is not necessarily an historical and factual account could never dilute or change the message of compassion."
I don't deny that the Bible contains a message of compassion, Theo, but it contains much more than that, including historical truth.

Here is what our new Catechism teaches us, repeatedly quoting from article 19 of "Dei Verbum," the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on Divine Revelation:

"126. We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:
"1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, 'whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.'
"2. The oral tradition. 'For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.'
"3. The written Gospels. 'The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.'"

Here is one more example of what the Catholic Church has told us:

"Some [scripture scholars], motivated by rationalistic prejudices, refuse to recognize the existence of a supernatural order. They deny the intervention of a personal God in the world by means of Revelation in the strict sense, and reject the possibility or actual occurrence of miracles and prophecies. Some start out with an erroneous concept of faith, regarding faith as indifferent to, or even incompatible with, historical truth. Some deny, a priori as it were, the historical nature and historical value of the documents of Revelation. And finally, some minimize the authority of the Apostles as witnesses to Christ. Belittling their office and their influence in the primitive community, these people exaggerate the creative power of the community itself. All these opinions are not only contrary to Catholic doctrine, but also devoid of scholarly foundation and inconsistent with the sound principles of the historical method [of scriptural exegesis]." [from "The Historicity of the Gospels" a 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Bible Commission (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM)]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Dear Theo:

You are reading junk. If you are honest and a good person, all you have to do is read the true accounts of all these great truths. There's a mountain of good reading available, and if you request an assortment, we can tell you where it is.

I'm struck by one small detail in your post: According to Craveri, “Ultimately, Constantine I (306-37) was able, through his skillful political manipulations, to join the Christian symbols to those of the sun cult.”

Craveri is no authority on our holy Mother Church, Theo. God is all-powerful and has no need of either Constantine's empire or Craveri's observations. God sent us His Only-begotten Son, Jesus. With no help from historians.

His Son saves us from sin and death. He also gave us His Church and the Apostles. He and His Almighty father sent His Church the Holy Spirit, to guard the church and keep her forever. With no possibility of error or corruption. Did Craveri mention any of these things? No-- I didn't think he had. Check it out, Theo.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Good grief! Mr. Senyszyn should find himself a hobby! Most of this is too absurd to even bother with; but a few quick comments ...

Of course the Magi found Mary and the child in a house! It is widely accepted that the Magi were not there on the day Jesus was born. They probably appeared some months later. The Holy Family did not continue to live in the stable once the initial crisis was past. So the fact that they were living in a house when the Magi finally got there says nothing about where Jesus was born!

... no place in the kataluma ... sheesh ... I love these guys who toss around Hebrew and Greek words, knowing you can't refute their interpretation, since you don't know Greek and Hebrew any better than they do. So - kataluma means "room", not "inn". And "there was no place in the room" means no place to lay the baby down? So they had to drag a manger into the room from the stable? The problem here is that Senyszyn conveniently leaves out two little words which clarify the meaning of the passage. It reads "she laid him in a manger, for there was no room FOR THEM in the inn". It was therefore all of them that there was no room for - not just the baby. Which means that they had to go somewhere else - so the manger she laid Him in was at that new location. If kataluma means "room", then the passage says there was no room for them in the room - which puts them back in the stable!

John 1:45-46 says where Jesus "came from" - but has nothing whatsoever to do with the place of His birth. Everyone knows that Dick Cheney came from Wyoming - but he was born in Nebraska. All this passage shows is that the people didn't know the details of Jesus' birth. And why would they? It is apparent they were not relatives or close friends of the family. If the New Testament says that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, then the Old Testament is also wrong, since the OT identified the birthplace of the Messiah. But I suppose that would be a plus, from Mr. Senyszyn's viewpoint.

Just one comment on his last comment. Ahh, another Hebrew word! He says that "almah" means "young woman", not necessarily "virgin", and that Matt 1:22-23 therefore does not indicate that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. True - the noun can be translated either way. This is where "reading the verse in context" comes in. The referenced passage in Isaiah 7 says "God Himself will give you a sign. The virgin is with child, and will bear A son ...". Now, that would be quite an impressive sign! Something the world had never seen before! Somehow, translating this as "A young woman will have a baby" just doesn't have quite the same impact. That would be a sign very easy to overlook.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

In this case, "consider the source(s)" would be a good rule to follow.

A.N. Wilson ... John P. Meier ... John Dominic Crossan ... none are what you'd call orthodox Christian scholars to begin with, so what would you expect them to say?

Crossan is involved with the (in)famous "Jesus Seminar" - you know, the guys who decide whether or not Jesus said or did something by VOTING on it?? Very reliable scholarship ... ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.