Yeats
Member
- Messages
- 281
We three Kings of Orient are...
Well, no. They really aren't.
So much has been amended and revised concerning the Nativity that it occurred to me to try and set some of the record straight. The three kings are not the only mistaken idea that folks have about the event. Let's start with the time of Jesus' birth.
First, let's get the obvious out of the way: Jesus was not born in the year zero. There's a simple reason for this. There was no year zero. (I am, of course, talking about the Christian calendar. Other cultures mark their years differently.) The year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC, with no year zero in between. Because of this, many people mistakenly celebrated the turn of the new millennium on January 1, 2000 instead of properly doing so on January 1, 2001.
[By the way, the proper usage is AD followed by the year, not the year followed by AD. While BC stands for "Before Christ" and can properly be placed after the year in question, the abbreviation AD stands for "Anno Domini", Latin for "the Year of our Lord". So, 2000 BC means "two thousand years before Christ" and AD 2000 means "in the year of our Lord 2000".]
So, Jesus was born in AD 1, right? Well...
... probably not.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (Matthew 2:1)
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (Luke 2:1-2)
The Herod in the Nativity story was also known as Herod the Great. He ruled from 37 BC until 4 BC. Caesar Augustus, the first of the Roman emperors, ruled from 27 BC until AD 14. Cyrenius is a bit harder to identify, but it's likely that he was actually Sulpicius Quirinius, the Roman viceroy, and later governor, of Syria. His rule began in 12 BC. (I'm not certain when it ended, but there is a record of his taking a census in AD 6, so he was still around long after Herod had died.) Taking the reigns of these three men together, we can be reasonably certain that Jesus was born sometime between 12 BC and 4 BC. Any earlier, and Cyrenius (Quirinius) could not have ruled in Syria. Any later, and Herod the Great would have been dead. Most scholars have settled on the year 6 BC as the true birth year of Jesus, but there is no universal agreement on this date.
"Well," you might say, "Even if we're not sure of the year of Jesus' birth, we certainly know the day. December 25, right?"
Wrong. Well, probably wrong, anyway.
There is no record, either in the Bible or in any other document, that the early church ever celebrated the birth of Jesus. There is abundant documentation that the early church celebrated Passover, as well as the day of Jesus' resurrection (although it wasn't known as Easter until much later), but as for the celebration of Christmas by the early church, there is no evidence. It wasn't until the year 354 (that's AD, obviously) that the Roman Bishop Liberius set the date of December 25.
Why did he do it? A public relations campaign, most likely.
You see, in Liberius' day, the church was expanding all over the Roman Empire. In Northern Europe, many tribes observed the Winter Solstice, which took place around the 21st or 22nd of December. Even in Italy itself, there was the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which was celebrated for twelve days near the end of December. (Twelve days of Christmas, anyone?) There were also many other cultures within the Empire where the Solstice was observed. Perhaps Liberius thought, by substituting the celebration of the Nativity for those pagan celebrations, that he could woo the unbelievers into the fold.
"But," you may ask, "Couldn't Liberius have gotten the date right anyway? Perhaps he was inspired."
It's possible, I suppose. After all, there was a 1 in 365 chance that the good bishop stumbled upon the right day. I don't think it's likely, however. Here's why:
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. (Luke 2:8)
If December 25 comes during the rainy season in the Holy Land (and it does) then why on earth would shepherds be tending their flock outside at night? It's skimpy evidence, I'll admit, but it seems far more likely that those shepherds and their sheep would be out at night during a more pleasant season.
By the way, not all Christians observe Christmas on December 25. The Eastern Orthodox church has its celebration about thirteen days later. This is because they still use the old Julian calendar instead of the Gregorian calendar which is used by the majority of Christians. There are even some Christian sects -- such as the Worldwide Church of God -- who not only do not celebrate Christmas, but also consider such a celebration to be somewhat blasphemous.
Enough about days and years. I mentioned the three kings of the Christmas carol earlier. Let's look at them for a moment.
First of all, they weren't kings.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Saying, 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. (Matthew 2:1-2)
We see Herod the king. We see the king of the Jews. But the men who came from the east to Jerusalem aren't called kings here (or anywhere else, except in the Christmas carol). They are called wise men -- literally magos, magi, or Magians. Today, we would call them astrologers. At the time, they were perhaps the closest thing that the ancient world had for scientists. The Magians (at least these particular Magians) spent their time and energy on the observation of the heavens. They believed -- as astrologers still do today -- that astronomical phenomena influence events here on earth.
Where were they from? Well, the text says "the east". My guess would be Babylon (modern-day Iraq). Lots of astrologers in Babylon. Or, perhaps, Persia (modern-day Iran). The Persians had Magians to spare -- at least when they weren't fighting the followers of Zoroaster, but that's another story.
Note that the text does not say three wise men. The number is not given. In fact, it's probably very likely that there were many more than three of them. In those days, because of bandits and other dangers, traveling in that part of the world wasn't a very safe (or smart) thing to do in small numbers. (Come to think of it, it's not a very safe thing to do these days either.) There were probably about twenty to fifty of them, at the least.
Then why do people believe that there were only three wise men? Because of the gifts, silly.
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11)
Three gifts were given, therefore there must have been three gift-givers. However, there could have been more gifts which simply weren't mentioned, or perhaps several Magians chipped in for a single gift (those cheapskate bastards).
Whether or not there were more than three gifts given, there is a very good reason why Matthew mentions these three in particular. Matthew's main goal in writing his version of events was to convert Jews to the faith. Over and over again in his Gospel, we read where this or that Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. This was done in order to "prove" to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
One of the beliefs which the Jews had concerning the Messiah was that he would be a prophet, a priest, and a king all rolled into one.
Gold represents kingship. Frankincense represents the priesthood. Myrrh, a substance used in burial rites, was associated with prophets and their martyrdom. Whether or not these gifts were actually given (and why give a burial ointment to a child?) was of no consequence as far as Matthew was concerned. He was more interested in conversion than historical accuracy.
By the way, did you notice that the wise men did not visit Jesus in the manger? Yep. The wise men weren't in time to witness the birth. (Your little Nativity scene decorating your front lawn is wrong. Go out there and take those wise men out right now.) The wise men, in fact, didn't show up until about a year or two later. This is why the verse says that the wise men came into the house -- not the manger. Want more proof? Okay.
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. (Matthew 2:16)
Why kill all the children two years old and under, if the "criminal" that Herod was seeking was just a newborn? Why extend the manhunt "to all the coasts thereof" if the babe was still in a manger in Bethlehem? This would make no sense unless a considerable time had passed.
Another Christmas tidbit: I've heard that some Christians are offended by the use of Xmas instead of Christmas as the name of the holiday, but why be offended? It's not a modern custom. It's been around since at least the twelfth century.
You see, in Greek, the letter chi is represented as X. Chi is the first letter in Christos -- the Greek word for Christ. It's an abbreviation, that's all. Those who use it aren't trying to be offensive. They're just lazy.
Lastly, for all of you out there who have a Christmas tree in your home, I'll leave you with the words of the prophet, Jeremiah:
Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. (Jeremiah 10:2-4)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and be a good little heathen and trim my tree.
Merry Christmas.
Well, no. They really aren't.
So much has been amended and revised concerning the Nativity that it occurred to me to try and set some of the record straight. The three kings are not the only mistaken idea that folks have about the event. Let's start with the time of Jesus' birth.
First, let's get the obvious out of the way: Jesus was not born in the year zero. There's a simple reason for this. There was no year zero. (I am, of course, talking about the Christian calendar. Other cultures mark their years differently.) The year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC, with no year zero in between. Because of this, many people mistakenly celebrated the turn of the new millennium on January 1, 2000 instead of properly doing so on January 1, 2001.
[By the way, the proper usage is AD followed by the year, not the year followed by AD. While BC stands for "Before Christ" and can properly be placed after the year in question, the abbreviation AD stands for "Anno Domini", Latin for "the Year of our Lord". So, 2000 BC means "two thousand years before Christ" and AD 2000 means "in the year of our Lord 2000".]
So, Jesus was born in AD 1, right? Well...
... probably not.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (Matthew 2:1)
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (Luke 2:1-2)
The Herod in the Nativity story was also known as Herod the Great. He ruled from 37 BC until 4 BC. Caesar Augustus, the first of the Roman emperors, ruled from 27 BC until AD 14. Cyrenius is a bit harder to identify, but it's likely that he was actually Sulpicius Quirinius, the Roman viceroy, and later governor, of Syria. His rule began in 12 BC. (I'm not certain when it ended, but there is a record of his taking a census in AD 6, so he was still around long after Herod had died.) Taking the reigns of these three men together, we can be reasonably certain that Jesus was born sometime between 12 BC and 4 BC. Any earlier, and Cyrenius (Quirinius) could not have ruled in Syria. Any later, and Herod the Great would have been dead. Most scholars have settled on the year 6 BC as the true birth year of Jesus, but there is no universal agreement on this date.
"Well," you might say, "Even if we're not sure of the year of Jesus' birth, we certainly know the day. December 25, right?"
Wrong. Well, probably wrong, anyway.
There is no record, either in the Bible or in any other document, that the early church ever celebrated the birth of Jesus. There is abundant documentation that the early church celebrated Passover, as well as the day of Jesus' resurrection (although it wasn't known as Easter until much later), but as for the celebration of Christmas by the early church, there is no evidence. It wasn't until the year 354 (that's AD, obviously) that the Roman Bishop Liberius set the date of December 25.
Why did he do it? A public relations campaign, most likely.
You see, in Liberius' day, the church was expanding all over the Roman Empire. In Northern Europe, many tribes observed the Winter Solstice, which took place around the 21st or 22nd of December. Even in Italy itself, there was the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which was celebrated for twelve days near the end of December. (Twelve days of Christmas, anyone?) There were also many other cultures within the Empire where the Solstice was observed. Perhaps Liberius thought, by substituting the celebration of the Nativity for those pagan celebrations, that he could woo the unbelievers into the fold.
"But," you may ask, "Couldn't Liberius have gotten the date right anyway? Perhaps he was inspired."
It's possible, I suppose. After all, there was a 1 in 365 chance that the good bishop stumbled upon the right day. I don't think it's likely, however. Here's why:
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. (Luke 2:8)
If December 25 comes during the rainy season in the Holy Land (and it does) then why on earth would shepherds be tending their flock outside at night? It's skimpy evidence, I'll admit, but it seems far more likely that those shepherds and their sheep would be out at night during a more pleasant season.
By the way, not all Christians observe Christmas on December 25. The Eastern Orthodox church has its celebration about thirteen days later. This is because they still use the old Julian calendar instead of the Gregorian calendar which is used by the majority of Christians. There are even some Christian sects -- such as the Worldwide Church of God -- who not only do not celebrate Christmas, but also consider such a celebration to be somewhat blasphemous.
Enough about days and years. I mentioned the three kings of the Christmas carol earlier. Let's look at them for a moment.
First of all, they weren't kings.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Saying, 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. (Matthew 2:1-2)
We see Herod the king. We see the king of the Jews. But the men who came from the east to Jerusalem aren't called kings here (or anywhere else, except in the Christmas carol). They are called wise men -- literally magos, magi, or Magians. Today, we would call them astrologers. At the time, they were perhaps the closest thing that the ancient world had for scientists. The Magians (at least these particular Magians) spent their time and energy on the observation of the heavens. They believed -- as astrologers still do today -- that astronomical phenomena influence events here on earth.
Where were they from? Well, the text says "the east". My guess would be Babylon (modern-day Iraq). Lots of astrologers in Babylon. Or, perhaps, Persia (modern-day Iran). The Persians had Magians to spare -- at least when they weren't fighting the followers of Zoroaster, but that's another story.
Note that the text does not say three wise men. The number is not given. In fact, it's probably very likely that there were many more than three of them. In those days, because of bandits and other dangers, traveling in that part of the world wasn't a very safe (or smart) thing to do in small numbers. (Come to think of it, it's not a very safe thing to do these days either.) There were probably about twenty to fifty of them, at the least.
Then why do people believe that there were only three wise men? Because of the gifts, silly.
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11)
Three gifts were given, therefore there must have been three gift-givers. However, there could have been more gifts which simply weren't mentioned, or perhaps several Magians chipped in for a single gift (those cheapskate bastards).
Whether or not there were more than three gifts given, there is a very good reason why Matthew mentions these three in particular. Matthew's main goal in writing his version of events was to convert Jews to the faith. Over and over again in his Gospel, we read where this or that Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. This was done in order to "prove" to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
One of the beliefs which the Jews had concerning the Messiah was that he would be a prophet, a priest, and a king all rolled into one.
Gold represents kingship. Frankincense represents the priesthood. Myrrh, a substance used in burial rites, was associated with prophets and their martyrdom. Whether or not these gifts were actually given (and why give a burial ointment to a child?) was of no consequence as far as Matthew was concerned. He was more interested in conversion than historical accuracy.
By the way, did you notice that the wise men did not visit Jesus in the manger? Yep. The wise men weren't in time to witness the birth. (Your little Nativity scene decorating your front lawn is wrong. Go out there and take those wise men out right now.) The wise men, in fact, didn't show up until about a year or two later. This is why the verse says that the wise men came into the house -- not the manger. Want more proof? Okay.
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. (Matthew 2:16)
Why kill all the children two years old and under, if the "criminal" that Herod was seeking was just a newborn? Why extend the manhunt "to all the coasts thereof" if the babe was still in a manger in Bethlehem? This would make no sense unless a considerable time had passed.
Another Christmas tidbit: I've heard that some Christians are offended by the use of Xmas instead of Christmas as the name of the holiday, but why be offended? It's not a modern custom. It's been around since at least the twelfth century.
You see, in Greek, the letter chi is represented as X. Chi is the first letter in Christos -- the Greek word for Christ. It's an abbreviation, that's all. Those who use it aren't trying to be offensive. They're just lazy.
Lastly, for all of you out there who have a Christmas tree in your home, I'll leave you with the words of the prophet, Jeremiah:
Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. (Jeremiah 10:2-4)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and be a good little heathen and trim my tree.
Merry Christmas.
Last edited: