History of Christmas

[UtahDan]

Below is a terrific podcast I just finished from Mormon Matters on Christmas. Jared Andersen on what the gospels teach us about it, Zina Petersen (BYU) on the history of Christmas through the middle ages (this parts is absolutely fascinating) and then some discussion at the end about how to have Christmas be a spiritual highlight notwithstanding that much people believe about it is on shaky historical ground. Nothing that will offend the faithful and just really, really interesting. Enjoy.

62: A Christmas Primer: Exploring the Nativity in Scripture, Legend, History, and Hearts

[Portland Ute]

Below is a terrific podcast I just finished from Mormon Matters on Christmas. Jared Andersen on what the gospels teach us about it, Zina Petersen (BYU) on the history of Christmas through the middle ages (this parts is absolutely fascinating) and then some discussion at the end about how to have Christmas be a spiritual highlight notwithstanding that much people believe about it is on shaky historical ground. Nothing that will offend the faithful and just really, really interesting. Enjoy.

62: A Christmas Primer: Exploring the Nativity in Scripture, Legend, History, and Hearts

I see what you are doing here. You are handing out candy cigarettes!

[UtahDan]

I see what you are doing here. You are handing out candy cigarettes!

Ha! Honestly, not at all. This is faithful friendly! I mean, it has a BYU prof!

[Moliere]

I listened to this yesterday on my commute and enjoyed it very much. I was hoping though that Jared would back up my thoughts on "no room for them in the inn" but he didn't, instead electing to describe the "inn" as a campground.

I still feel that Luke 2:7 is misinterpreted to mean they had no where to stay at all as it defies logic that anyone would force a women who is 9-months pregnant to sleep in a stable. That verse can easily be read to indicate only the birth happened in the stable as the great room would have been crowded and less conducive to childbirth.

[lambdacoug]

Did they mention Saturnalia?

[UtahDan]

I listened to this yesterday on my commute and enjoyed it very much. I was hoping though that Jared would back up my thoughts on "no room for them in the inn" but he didn't, instead electing to describe the "inn" as a campground.

I still feel that Luke 2:7 is misinterpreted to mean they had no where to stay at all as it defies logic that anyone would force a women who is 9-months pregnant to sleep in a stable. That verse can easily be read to indicate only the birth happened in the stable as the great room would have been crowded and less conducive to childbirth.

I think that may have been because of his conclusion that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but Nazareth and that the journey was a Lucan invention to get Jesus to Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecy, connect him to David, etc.

[Solon]

I think that may have been because of his conclusion that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but Nazareth and that the journey was a Lucan invention to get Jesus to Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecy, connect him to David, etc.

I would think this too, but the tradition of jesus being born in Bethlehem is really, really old - perhaps older than Luke's gospel. I've heard a theory that perhaps Joseph of Nazareth was in the Jerusalem area as an itinerant worker, since herod's massive public works projects employed so many people.

[Moliere]

I think that may have been because of his conclusion that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but Nazareth and that the journey was a Lucan invention to get Jesus to Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecy, connect him to David, etc.

Could be, but he went to great lengths to translate the word for "inn" and to conclude that is was a campground, which I've never heard or read anywhere. He seemed to be on the fringe for that one, but overall I enjoyed the podcast.

[UtahDan]

Could be, but he went to great lengths to translate the word for "inn" and to conclude that is was a campground, which I've never heard or read anywhere. He seemed to be on the fringe for that one, but overall I enjoyed the podcast.

I've invited him to come by and explain it, hopefully he will have time.

[Moliere]

I've invited him to come by and explain it, hopefully he will have time.

Ha! UD working the connections! Awesome!

FTR, if wards were run like basketball teams I'd trade half my ward to have Jared as my GD teacher. I'd also sign Kristine Haglund as a free agent to run the Relief Society.

[SuperGabers]

Ha! UD working the connections! Awesome!

FTR, if wards were run like basketball teams I'd trade half my ward to have Jared as my GD teacher. I'd also sign Kristine Haglund as a free agent to run the Relief Society.

That would be enough to get me back in a pew... and only if you were the Bish...

[DrumNFeather]

I listened to the first hour or so and plan on finishing it up today or tomorrow. The host needs to speak into the microphone more and the BYU prof needs to take a few steps back from hers.

It seemed a little bit less like a history lesson and a little bit more of a deconstructing of the Christmas story, which is fine...though I do think the whole "I'll never look at a nativity the same" was a bit much. Nevertheless, it is still very interesting and well worth the listen.

EDIT: I spoke to soon, now I can barely hear the BYU prof...can't win 'em all.

[UtahDan]

Yeah there is definitely some deconstruction there. One of the things I thought was interesting was the idea that the journey to Bethlehem is a literary device rather history. But looking at it from the perspective of just the gospels, it makes sense to me that the followers of Jesus would have known very little about his early life. By the time Matthew and Luke are writing you wouldn't have anything more than the oral tradition. At least I assume this from the fact that there common source Mark does not mention it. So in that light it makes good sense to me that this is an argument for his messiahship rather than an accounting of actual events.

That doesn't mean that a person has to disbelieve the events, it just means that the gospel writers didn't know very much about them. But regardless of what the truth is, for me the fact remains that Christians have constructed some of the most beautiful traditions as well as music around this holiday to be found anywhere. I don't think that learning more about what the gospels do and do not say about it in anyway undermines that.

[DrumNFeather]

Yeah there is definitely some deconstruction there. One of the things I thought was interesting was the idea that the journey to Bethlehem is a literary device rather history. But looking at it from the perspective of just the gospels, it makes sense to me that the followers of Jesus would have known very little about his early life. By the time Matthew and Luke are writing you wouldn't have anything more than the oral tradition. At least I assume this from the fact that there common source Mark does not mention it. So in that light it makes good sense to me that this is an argument for his messiahship rather than an accounting of actual events.

That doesn't mean that a person has to disbelieve the events, it just means that the gospel writers didn't know very much about them. But regardless of what the truth is, for me the fact remains that Christians have constructed some of the most beautiful traditions as well as music around this holiday to be found anywhere. I don't think that learning more about what the gospels do and do not say about it in anyway undermines that.

This comment got me thinking...

Is there any evidence one way or another as to the ages of the apostles? Were they right around the same age as Jesus? Were they older? Younger? What I'm thinking here, is that even if they were older by, say, 5-7 years, perhaps they were tought the prophecies of his birth. Just a thought. Maybe some scholars can educate me on that one.

[Solon]

This comment got me thinking...

Is there any evidence one way or another as to the ages of the apostles? Were they right around the same age as Jesus? Were they older? Younger? What I'm thinking here, is that even if they were older by, say, 5-7 years, perhaps they were tought the prophecies of his birth. Just a thought. Maybe some scholars can educate me on that one.

It's a good question, but probably unanswerable since the written sources we have weren't written by the apostles. All we have are the documents.

Paul's letters are probably the earliest Christian writings. Tradition holds that Paul was killed by Nero, so sometime before 68. It's probably not a stretch to assume he was born at about the same time as Jesus (+ or - a few years). Peter is supposed to have died under Nero as well, but we don't have his writings (gnostic stuff aside).

So, to get back to the original question of whether the apostles knew the prophecies of the Messiah, I think they probably did. But at the same time we today read the prophecies in Isaiah with certainty of Jesus fulfilling them, when I think many of the "prophecies" were intended to deal with issues much closer to the time of Isaiah. To be more clear: the pronouncements about a coming Messiah applied to the captivity of Israel, were later taken to apply to the coming of a Messiah in Jesus' time, and are today considered to herald the (second) coming of the Messiah in the last days. So, some would say that the prophecy is acting "on many levels". Others would contend that people are just reading into them the circumstances of their own time.