Joy To The World! – Not So Fast

January 1, 1993

The lovely songs, stories and memories have warmed our hearts and lifted our spirits (unless one is jobless, hungry, or homeless). But at this halfway point of the Twelve Days of Christmas, I wonder why amid all the joy, there is so little grief expressed for the innocent babies who were slaughtered (MATTHEW 2/13 ff):

“... an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod....

“Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

‘A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled,
because they were no more.’”

Along with the overdose of lilting, rejoicing, and carols, why has there been no sorrowful dirge, poem of grief, passionate rage against Herod? Why has this genocide been so little noted? I have leafed through books of Nativity poems and adoring homage paid to the Virgin and her son of divine conception. Why no lamentations about those Jewish babies in Bethlehem who were stabbed and gutted by Herod’s police? The Roman Catholic church does have an Innocents Day, December 28, remembering the children slaughtered by Herod, celebrating a “Mass of the Holy Innocents.” I am frequently critical of aspects of Roman Catholicism, but I give it a plus for remembering the children.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, in her protest against the exploitation of children in mine and mill during the 19th century Industrial Revolution, “The Cry of the Children,” concludes her poem with these lines:

“But the child’s sob in the silence curses deeper
Than the strong man in his wrath.”

Immediately, some will respond that the Nativity stories were not historical events. For example, the the Apostle Paul, whose writings are the earliest of New Testament scripture, knew nothing of these birth stories. The accounts were late additions when the early Christian church was taking form and exerting influence. Whether called myth, legend or fable, such birth stories were a characteristic of many religions. In religious origins, Jesus was not the first or last “savior” to be born of a virgin, divinely impregnated, or to miraculously escape the murderous plots of a tyrant or enemy. Such nativity wonder-tales seem to be a necessary credential to be a founder of a religion. (Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Horus, Tammuz, Mithra, Zoroaster, Quetzacoatl) .

But, “so what?” you might respond. Christmas is a lovely and necessary fantasy in a grim and cruel world. Why not a suspension of belief when we are lifted from our prosaic lives to sing, share, re-tell the Nativity stories, make children excited and happy, feast and frolic; and bless our human venture with hopes and prayers for peace and good-will – celebrate what is not true but ought to be?

O.K., no argument. BUT, if one considers the whole story as written by the author of “Matthew,” which differs from Luke, then one can speculate about disturbing questions. Why did not the Angel warn other Jewish parents in Bethlehem of Herod’s plan to slaughter their infants? Before they fled, could not have Joseph and Mary warned neighbors, “Get out of town; the Gestapo will be knocking on doors.” Did the Christian plan of salvation require that all those Jewish kids be killed? If one celebrates the Christian Nativity as if it were true, do not ignore or dismiss the cruel murders of innocent infants. Herod was probably capable of such an outrage, but there is no contemporary record of it. Furthermore that story does cohere with Luke’s account. In Luke’s gospel, Joseph and Mary never leave Bethlehem and Nazareth.

Amid the odor of sanctity, I sense a whiff of anti-Semitism. Unless you consider that statement too outrageous to read on, consider the following:

Bible scholars do not place the date of “Matthew” earlier than 75 A.D., some as late as 100 A.D. (Morton Enslin) . From the time of Paul the Apostle, there had been a struggle between Paul and the Jerusalem followers of Jesus based in that city. The Jerusalem group believed Jesus to be the Messiah to the Jews. Paul and his group, increasingly “Gentile,” held that Jesus represented a new dispensation – the Gospel superseded the Law and the Torah and prophets (Old Testament), and had been replaced by the New Covenant (New Testament). Under the latter, Jewish ritual and law were no longer necessities.

This power struggle was more intense and hostile than commonly understood. When more of the Dead Sea Scrolls are translated, greater light will be thrown on this controversy. There are those who believe the translations have been deliberately delayed because they may provide much information and raise formidable questions about Christian beginnings. (For a full account, read THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS DECEPTION, by Baigent and Leigh).

Some scholars believe that “Matthew” wrote his gospel at Antioch. In the book of Acts we read, “They were first called Christians at Antioch.” In “Matthew’s” Nativity account, there is a religious/political “spin” on his quotation from the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah harshly condemned Judah and Israel for forsaking the Law, Covenant, and Commandments. He proclaimed that such faithlessness was the cause of the cruel trials, as Judah/Israel became the battleground between Egypt and Syria at war with each other. “Matthew” quotes Jeremiah (31/15):

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled,
because they were no more.”

But he does not continue his scriptural quote because Jeremiah went on to offer hope – not in a “New Covenant”, but in a return to the Law, Covenant, and Commandments. In “Matthew’s” gospel we find a most disastrous verse, which in the context of the times is highly unlikely to have occurred: When Pilate proclaims he is innocent of (Jesus’) blood, “and all the people answered, ‘let his blood be on us and our children.’”

Not only did “Matthew” ignore Jeremiah’s hope, but offers that very questionable verse, which appears ONLY in “Matthew”. That verse has been an igniting cause of savage persecutions of Jewish people, pogroms, vicious prejudice, segregation, and the Holocaust.

In any power struggle, usual elements are: who has power, who wants to grab it, no limitations on ways to to seize it or keep it; when useful, withhold or falsify relevant facts. There is no need to expand on tricks, dirty or clever, when there are bitter conflicts in religion or politics. Lord Acton, in ESSAYS ON FREEDOM AND POWER, covered that organizational disease brilliantly. Modern political contests are confirmations of his thesis, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Perhaps you are now casting me as the voice of Boris Karloff in “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” or as an unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge. Bah Humbug? Not so. I believe the holidays most people call Christmas are necessary to our well-being and a needed respite from Winter gloom, cares, anxieties, and woe. The Puritans prohibited celebrating Christmas, even fining people who were caught observing the holiday because the Puritans insisted it was a “Pagan” celebration.

They were correct in that label, but wrong in forbidding the observances. Long before the Christian nativity myths, peoples celebrated the days clustering around the Winter Solstice with feast and frolic: Roman Saturnalia, the Druids, Norse, Teutons revered the mistletoe, the sacred tree (ever-green), and Yule log. Torches were lighted to welcome and encourage the return of light.

In the 4th Century A.D., and not before then, Christians established December 25 as the birthday of Jesus, coinciding with the birth date of Mithra, “the invincible Sun.” The motive might have been to identify Jesus as “the Son”, or to attempt clean up the wild-partying of the Saturnalia, or to give Christians a doctrinal reason to join the celebrations. Perhaps it was as simple as, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”. That identity was a bit like altering a date on a passport for expedient reasons.

This consolidating of cultic practices still goes on. I found it fascinating that in St. Peter’s Square, Pope John Paul II had erected a large, decorated Christmas tree next to the Creche. Could the rigidly dogmatic Pope unaware that he was attaching Nature Worship to the Nativity “miracles?” Some thoughtful Jewish people are dismayed that Hanukkah is considered by some as “Jewish Christmas.” Perhaps it is, in the cultural leveling, or erosion, that seems to be going on. A report in the newspaper included an interchange between two women. The first, because Christmas had no role or sanction in her religion, was reluctant to participate in any of the usual activities. “Come on,” said her friend, “Christmas is not a religious holiday at all.”

The truth or falsity of that judgment I leave to you-all. However interpreted, it is a glad and thoughtful time. The wheeling of the season to bring more light; the joy of remembering those we love and being remembered by them; the music – jolly, solemn, affectionate, deeply appealing (whatever the words); charities and human helping highlighted – yes, we need this Mid-winter festival.

Years ago, a university teacher said, “Christmas is a window through which we see a world that could be.” Can the “could be” ever become the “is”? Joy to the WHOLE world! And for all persons of the many diverse faith communities, a time to hope and work for a time when all of us understand each other more wisely and affectionately.