So far I have never taken the early dating of the Protoevangelium very seriously, but Clement's Stromata (VII, 16, 93, 7) seem to refer to it. Very interesting.schillingklaus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:59 am The Protevangile of James already contains the birth in the cave.
So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
I found Clement's Stromata Book VII but I got lost after that. Could you give a direct quotation of the text you are referring to?Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:08 amSo far I have never taken the early dating of the Protoevangelium very seriously, but Clement's Stromata (VII, 16, 93, 7) seem to refer to it. Very interesting.schillingklaus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:59 am The Protevangile of James already contains the birth in the cave.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book7.html
....
PS. I found this:
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. "And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth," Says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from conjunction. Wherefore the Scriptures have conceived to Gnostics; but the heresies, not having learned them, dismissed them as not having conceived.
Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts. And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul. For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures.
----------
But what are the implications?
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
Re: puerperal state
" the period of adjustment after childbirth during which the mother's reproductive system returns to its normal prepregnant state."
" the period of adjustment after childbirth during which the mother's reproductive system returns to its normal prepregnant state."
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
Re: the date of the publication of Protoevangelium of James
I googled it and found this essay arguing that the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (or rather, in his view, the reality of it) predates the later fictional account of it in Protoevangelium of James.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/ ... james.html
I googled it and found this essay arguing that the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (or rather, in his view, the reality of it) predates the later fictional account of it in Protoevangelium of James.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/ ... james.html
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
The Protoevangelium is written in an unbiblical style and almost strikes me as a Greek folk tale. However, I would assume that the Protoevangelium is dependent on Luke 1 & 2 and that there is still a longer period of reception between the two. Maybe at least 30 - 40 years? I dont know. In any case, it is to be considered for a dating of Luke 1 & 2.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
But it misses what Clement saidgryan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:13 am Re: the date of the publication of Protoevangelium of James
I googled it and found this essay arguing that the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (or rather, in his view, the reality of it) predates the later fictional account of it in Protoevangelium of James.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/ ... james.html
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.
The Protoevangelium of James, ch. 19 & 20
(3) And the midwife went out from the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her, “Salome, Salome, I have to describe a new sight to you. A virgin has given birth, which is against her nature!” And Salome said, “As the Lord my God lives, unless I examine her condition, I won’t believe that the virgin has given birth.”
...
(1) And the midwife went in and said, “Mary, position yourself, because there’s no small test coming concerning you.” And Salome examined her. And Salome cried out and said, “Woe because of my lawlessness and my unbelief! Because I’ve tested the living God, and look! My hand is on fire and falling away from me!”
...
(1) And the midwife went in and said, “Mary, position yourself, because there’s no small test coming concerning you.” And Salome examined her. And Salome cried out and said, “Woe because of my lawlessness and my unbelief! Because I’ve tested the living God, and look! My hand is on fire and falling away from me!”
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
Origen even says cave to Celsus. There are implications of saying your savior (God) was born in a cave to a Greek opponent of Christianity. And yet, it seems like it was generally accepted. So they built a church on top of it.
From: The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7
He could settle with the generic dwelling. But instead he goes here with his conclusion of "a place to stay"
My argument was initially not even with Carlson, but the writer of the article. I just noticed how he ignored the common understanding of early Christianity.
From: The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7
The earliest translations of Luke 2.7 into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin bear witness to
a generic meaning for κατάλυμα. Among the Syriac translations, the Peshitta for
instance renders ἐν τῷ καταλύματι broadly with the clause ,
‘where they were dwelling’.
He could settle with the generic dwelling. But instead he goes here with his conclusion of "a place to stay"
I believe the stories are myths, so I really don`t care about the historical elements. I know Carlson argues against inn or stable being the correct translation. I agree dwelling/place to stay is better. I just don`t know why he ignored common understanding of early Christianity as it would support his case just as much. Then he would have no need to construct the fantasy house with all that went on there.Luke's infancy narrative therefore presupposes the following events. Joseph took his betrothed Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem (2.5). Bethlehem was his hometown (v. 3) and, in accordance with the patrilocal marital customs of the day, it must also have been the place where they finalized their matrimonial arrangements by bringing her into his home. As a newly married man, he no longer would have to sleep in the main room of the village house with his other relatives, but he and his bride could stay in a marital chamber attached to the house until they could get a place of their own. They stayed there for some time until she came to full term (v. 6), and she gave birth to Jesus in the main room of the house rather than in her marital apartment because it was too small, and she laid the newborn in one of those mangers (v. 7) common to the main room of an ancient farmhouse. After staying at least another forty days in Bethlehem (v. 22; cf. Lev 12.2–8), Joseph and Mary eventually moved to Nazareth to make their home together in her family's town (v. 39; cf. 1.26–27). To be sure, this scenario as presupposed in Luke's infancy account diverges greatly from the conventional Christmas story. There is no inn, no innkeeper, and no stable. But it is grounded in a careful exegesis of the text."
My argument was initially not even with Carlson, but the writer of the article. I just noticed how he ignored the common understanding of early Christianity.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
Some scholars calmly analyze pericopes that are considered non-historical, but literary pleasing and theologically interesting. It's like a slightly ironic game and they enjoy it, especially at Christmas time. The birth story in GLuke is a good example, but I don't know whether Carlson is one of those scholars.Thor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:13 am I believe the stories are myths, so I really don`t care about the historical elements. I know Carlson argues against inn or stable being the correct translation. I agree dwelling/place to stay is better. I just don`t know why he ignored common understanding of early Christianity as it would support his case just as much. Then he would have no need to construct the fantasy house with all that went on there.
Realistically it must have been that Joseph and Mary first realized that they had no place and then and precisely because of that they put the baby in the manger. However, Luke repeated "wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger" formulaically three times and called it a sign. Therefore it seems more likely to me that he first had the literary idea of placing baby Jesus in a manger as a sign for the shepherds and only then he came up with a plausible explanation for this unusual treatment of the baby.
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
To me it seems like two scenes. You have the birth, and then you have the child on display ready for adoration. They are thematic "jump cuts". Leading up to the baby being placed in the manger it reads like a historical account, and ends up as a mythological scene. That is of course if you don`t believe the story is true. Then you would not notice how it shift gears.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:25 pm Therefore it seems more likely to me that he first had the literary idea of placing baby Jesus in a manger as a sign for the shepherds and only then he came up with a plausible explanation for this unusual treatment of the baby.
Last edited by Thor on Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
I remember seeing a documentary on the topic a while ago. How accurate it was I have no idea. The precis: Caves were used as cheap housing in earlier times. They were fitted out with doors and furniture, etc. Some were used to house animals when the weather demanded it as well. Places that were used to house animals -- caves and built structures -- had a raised platform in them where shepherds and guests could sleep. The thought was that this was the type of place the Gospel writers had in mind for the Gospel stories, and this is what Justin Martyr and others guessed had happened. So 'cave' didn't necessarily mean a stony bare cavern, but rather a kitted-out dwelling used for purpose.