So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?

Post by MrMacSon »

There's confluence of Protoevangelium of James 17 - 22.1 with Dialogue cum Trypho 78 (and with Matthew 2:1-12, though Matthew doesn't mention the cave)

excerpts from Dialogue c. Trypho 78
excerpts from Protoevangelium of James 18-21

since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.

... Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.

Then Justin repeated the passage from Isaiah [Isaiah 33:13-19] adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him/them


18.1 Joseph found a cave and brought Mary into it, and left her in the care of his sons and went out to seek for a Hebrew midwife in the region of Bethlehem.

19.1a And behold, a woman came down from the hill country and said to me, “Man, where are you going?” And I said, “I seek a Hebrew midwife.” And she answered me, “Are you from Israel?” And I said to her, “Yes.” And she said, “And who is she who brings forth in the cave?” And I said, “My betrothed.” And she said to me, “Is she not your wife?” And I said to her, “She is Mary, who was brought up in the temple of the Lord, and I received her by lot as my wife, and she is not my wife, but she has conceived by the Holy Spirit.” And the midwife said to him, “Is this true?” And Joseph said to her, “Come and see.” And she went with him.

19.2 They stopped at the entrance to the cave, and behold, a bright cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said, “My soul is magnified today, for my eyes have seen wonderful things; for salvation is born to Israel.”

And immediately the cloud disappeared from the cave and a great light appeared, so that our eyes could not bear it. A short time afterwards that light withdrew until the baby appeared, and it came and took the breast of its mother Mary ...

3 And the midwife came out of the cave, and Salome met her ...

20.1 ...Salome...tested Mary's 'condition' ... Salome came near and touched him, saying, “I will worship him, for a great king has been born to Israel.” ... she went out of the cave ... an angel of the Lord cried, “Salome, Salome, do not report what marvels you have seen, until the child has come to Jerusalem.”

21.1 And behold, Joseph was ready to go to Judea. And there took place a great tumult in Bethlehem of Judea. For there came wise men saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him” (= Matthew 2.1-2).


davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?

Post by davidmartin »

Salome must be friends with doubting Thomas!

I thought Salome had a reputation as a midwife for Mary somewhere, does the evangelion cleverly separate her so she can doubt and represent the doubters in general. Maybe they got the idea from Thomas. It's not the first thing a person might think of to put in a story? But if there's precedent...

That might date it to after John. I'm given to the idea Matthew and Luke postdate John so might have incorporated the birth story around the same time. All these flow charts of the gospels with John at the bottom really for no good reason. Not when many suspect Luke was redacted late out of Marcion and Matthew ties it all together a bit too conveniently in ways Mark and John don't, they mirror each other a lot.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Thor wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:58 am I stumbled upon this article about how wrong people are in their beliefs regarding the birth of Jesus. And after reading it I can`t get the article out my mind. A biblical scholar has written it....

https://theconversation.com/what-histor ... esus-89444
What history really tells us about the birth of Jesus

[trimmed]

Firstly, the actual birth day of Jesus was not December 25. The date we celebrate was adopted by the Christian church as the birthday of Christ in the fourth century. Prior to this period, different Christians celebrated Christmas on different dates.

So what really happened....? Why would someone believe this obvious mythical themed account of something can be rationalized to actual historical event.?
The actual years of the supposed birth and death of Jesus is not known let alone the calendar dates. The celebration of the birth and death of Jesus entered the Roman calendar during the supreme rule of Constantine. The celebration of Easter was supposedly hammered out by the Nicene Council 325 CE and the celebration of Christmas during the 330's CE. It is pretty obvious that the Nicene Christians hijacked (with Imperial support) the age old pagan celebrations / festivals of the Vernal equinox and midwinter.

The cave birth mythos of Jesus is IMO probably related in part to the mythos of the birth of Zeus in the Psychro (or Diktaean) Cave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychro_Cave
Thor
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:09 pm

Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?

Post by Thor »

The cave was evidence of prophecy fulfilled. The mythology have been chiseled away over time to the point of non-believers believe the story is some historical account. The "Cave" theme in mythology and religious practice have been with us since the dawn of man.

excerpt from Dialogue c. Trypho 76
Justin: For when Daniel speaks of 'one like the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth.
Mythological themes was used to argue legitimacy of Jesus by comparing similarities to other "gods", only superior in morals. Claims of similarities early Church fathers spoke of is today "fringe views".


excerpt from Dialogue c. Trypho 70
And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?
excerpt 1st Apology, ch. 66
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Commonalities had a natural explanation

excerpt from Dialogue c. Trypho 70
And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.



I am not making the claim that one thing is stolen from the other or anything like that. All I show is support for my initial claim of the "cave" being in many ways a important part of early Christianity. Church in early Christianity meant a community built on spirituality, not the description of buildings.

But I must admit I am even more surprised now than when I read the initial article in the OP. How "biblical scholars" working at Universities have so little knowledge about the "cave" element in origins of Christianity is simply baffling. It is actually strange even commenting on it.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Thor wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:41 am The cave was evidence of prophecy fulfilled. The mythology have been chiseled away over time to the point of non-believers believe the story is some historical account. The "Cave" theme in mythology and religious practice have been with us since the dawn of man.
Since cave people. The cave was a part of pagan ritual and Platonic allegory.

In regard to the issue of "historical" information ...
excerpt from Dialogue c. Trypho 76
excerpt from Dialogue c. Trypho 70
excerpt 1st Apology, ch. 66
excerpt from Dialogue c. Trypho 70
It is often popular in this group to cite references like this, and sometimes in the original language. What I find also of interest is the date of the earliest extant manuscript for the sources cited. This often seems to be an unpopular subject of discussion however I believe it to be just as important as other issues.

Here for example, our earliest manuscripts for Saint Justin are from the 14th century and are described as an "omnibus edition". Such are the facts to be weighed in the historical assessment of these so-called "early Christian literary sources".
I am not making the claim that one thing is stolen from the other or anything like that. All I show is support for my initial claim of the "cave" being in many ways a important part of early Christianity.
John mentions a cave but that was for death not birth.
Church in early Christianity meant a community built on spirituality, not the description of buildings.
I read it as "ecclesia" = assembly
But I must admit I am even more surprised now than when I read the initial article in the OP. How "biblical scholars" working at Universities have so little knowledge about the "cave" element in origins of Christianity is simply baffling. It is actually strange even commenting on it.
The absence of a (birth) cave in the NT canonical writings might explain this on the basis that for "biblical scholars" working at Universities the NT can sometimes be a VIP literary source. As shown in this thread the cave mythos is found in the NT apocrypha and in the writings of the Ante Nicene "Fathers". And everywhere in the pagan world.
Post Reply