Monday, December 20, 2010

Mary, was it one of Herod's soldiers?

It really doesn't matter what your position is on the ancient Christmas story, ok? Over the years, I've learned the importance of this historical account isn't about me.  On the contrary, whatever your mental process is on this "story" be it skeptic, rationalist, agnostic or atheist, this account exists and stands firmly in the conviction of many people. I would venture to say the vast majority of anyone subscribing to a "religion" have a position on what happened 2000 years ago. Their perspectives may surprise you. Islam and Christianity are actually unified on the account, that this young girl, Mary, was a virgin. There is nothing else shared between Islam and Christianity, but I have a deep respect for the beliefs of my Muslim friends. The other major religion, Judaism, is of the opinion that the key character in our story was a Semite and somewhat of a deluded victim of extreme poverty. To many Jews, Mary was the mother of a misguided rabbi. Nevertheless, this "ancient superstition" stands.

We all know the story, most likely because we are influenced by it in some way. We may not admit it, but we are influenced by it. In fact,

Some time ago, I wrote a similar perspective on this topic entitled  "Was that Jewish Peasant Girl Lying? " and I wonder if you would be a patient reader and allow me to propose some other perspectives on my first narrative?

First of all, these traditions about the first Christmas could be entirely false or this could be a infallible account of actual events. Also, it could be an embellishment of a story. It doesn't matter that a prophet, hundreds of years earlier,  talked about a virgin birth of the Messiah (see Isaiah 7:14). Maybe Isaiah was mistaken though, probably that old text could be translated "young girl" and not a virgin. Or maybe it was translated and copied wrong, written after the account of these things (we should mention here the Isaiah papyrus known as the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Who was this teenage girl, Mary? Did she even exist?  Where did this story come up about being a virgin?


 

At the outset, as you come to this story there are angels. In our minds, there may or may not have been angelic visitations - most of us fall into one of those two camps. In our current culture we may dismiss these heavenly visitors, but in the text there were two such visitations. One to the father of the man who would later become "John The Baptist" (a rather extreme fundamentalist in the Baptist-sense) and this young teen girl.

On Zechariah, he was a Hebrew disbeliever. Now, if you are a disbeliever in Mary's account, please ponder Zechariah skepticism for a moment. It doesn't matter what the angel says to him, he doesn't believe it. A  very religious man and a priest going about this act of religiosity, he was interrupted in one of the most important duties assigned to ancient priests of his day - the annual rite of offering a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people.  The angel is saying his "older wife - Elizabeth" will have a son.

For the record, the Qur'an references and Elizabeth, Zachariah and John the Baptist as exalted doers of good. In essence, Islam recognizes the angelic visitation to Zachariah.

Anyway, Zechariah chokes. He's never heard a voice in the sanctuary before. He is scared and maybe not thinking correctly. It is usually quiet in here, this is a sacred place.  All he says is, "how can this be?" Folks, my wife and I are similar in age, both in our mid-50s. We have been married 34 years, raised 3 daughters and now have 6 grandchildren. I could easily cut this guy a break, most likely I would have the same response. However, the angel rebuffs him. Zechariah is not to speak until the baby is born.

Now we have Mary. Same angel, but a more preposterous claim. I'd  be the first person to dismiss the possibility of a virgin birth. After all, how can a woman become pregnant when she has never had sexual intercourse? She plainly asks the angel this very question. An explanation is given.

At this point, the jury is out. What will Mary say to this angel?

I've wondered through the years, what ran threw her head at that precise moment in time.

She can hear her father going ballistic when she presents the urine strip test results to her family.

"Mary, was it one of Herod's soldiers?"

Or, he might be thinking "that Joseph.. he has ruined the reputation of our family."

 
She is a scared young girl, but replies to the angel "let it be done according to your word."

Let's be clear here, ok? Mary was not raped by a man or by a spiritual  being or a "Holy Spirit" or whatever else we can conjure up. What happened to her was by her consent.

Did she immediately tell her family or Joseph about this visitation? I don't know. It isn't clear. They did find out though, either by her explanation or by the obvious shape of her physical appearance. The bible text does say that she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth's house. This visit was purposeful. Elizabeth is obviously pregnant by this time. This woman also validates any doubts Mary would have about her own spiritual journey in this matter.

Now, for the record, I don't deify Mary. She was a person just like you and I. She is an example of faith in a faithless age, both then and now.

If you are interested in what I am writing about here, can I encourage you to read the original text account of these things?  Read Luke 1:1-45.

11 comments:

  1. A teenager´s mind is quite vivid, and will think up any old story to get out of trouble. Don´t worry about angelic visitations, because there were never any. Instead do think a bit about how come this "holy spirit" has not been heard of again for more than 2000 years. What kind of "righteous god" works "miracles" by creating perverted riddles and seemingly endless misery for all beings on the planet?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Appreciate your frank response Jon! Gosh, I am impressed someone actually reads what I post.

    It does get confusing, doesn't it? If we live in a world where there is religious conflict, this teen's account on the surface does seem to complicate things. There's really a great deal of detail in the text though (not mine, but in the gospel of Luke). Incidentally, if any of the New Testament authors would know anything about the physical components to conception it would be Dr. Luke.

    I have learned through my Christian life that when the "holy spirit" is silent, it is usually of my own doing. My own sin, my own rebellion, my own selfishness. So, I can't explain the silence you experience.

    Central to this account (Mary's) though is the identity of the child. His birth into the physical world is just like his birth into our hearts. Logic and reason won't explain it all, but nether does a Christian commit intellectual suicide to believe the account.

    I am curious though. Do you really think this "fabricated" story is proportional to the impact the child would have on Western civilization? Can a poverty-stricken peasant girl from Nazareth really plot out the impact of her account?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Taking the recreational qualities aside, unless one´s profession is writing adventure or science-fiction novels, the illustrious mind, pondering on what the imaginary mind of an imaginary teenager might imagine in a piece of fiction, seems to me, if not wasted as some might say, but a fruitless activity. It´s not my aim to imply a conspiration theory masterminded by Mary, but merely to say, I´m sad that so much significance has been put into stories with so little credibility, instead of trying to understand the true function of verbal concepts e.g. religion, without forcing false scenarios onto unsuspecting youth, generation after generation. So that international society can progress from petty rivalry over resources, which is the true controversy behind every socalled religious conflict, to achieve a more energy effective regulation of resources than war. All life forms compete one way or another about resources. Inter-specific as well as intra-specific competition for resources takes place everywhere around us. The limits of resources are becoming more apparent, as our demographic density is rising globally. Humans are wiping out other life forms on a broad scale, to take over their resources. A natural activity which has taken place on this planet long before any existing species were alive. Religion is a multi-faceted tool, created by chance, which governments have used for millenii in humanity´s version of intraspecific competition. "The infidel" naturally can not have the same right to resources, so if they don´t believe the same stories, wiping them out, or making them less "human" becomes an easier task, so you can take over their resources. The examples of this mechanism are endless throughout known human history. "Humanity" would like to see themselves as an elevated life form, when in reality they are submitted to the very same mechanisms of inter- and intraspecific competition as the simplest of life forms, e.g. species of yeast in the act of fermenting. The rising demographic density of the yeast cells eventually results in the destruction of the culture, as it´s "waste product", ethanol, which in effect is a tool for interspecies competition with other micro organisms, destroys the culture itself, when it´s prevented from spreading beyond geographic limitations, and the volume of ethanol eventually surmounts the toleration levels of the yeast themselves. The yeast culture has no inhibiting regulators to stop it from over consuming the resources. Studying politics, e.g. marxism vs. capitalism reveals functions of politics very similar to religion. Politics are another tool for controlling resources. Politics and religion are human tools for intra-specific competition. Do humans have more control over our intra-specific weaponry than yeast cells do? Unfortunately it doesn´t seem that we are any better equipped with natural inhibitors than yeast in this respect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jon, I find great distinction between you and these other life forms very evident in in your lengthy discourse, and that is this incredible mind, the ability for abstract reasoning, contemplation on such wieghty matters as our place in the universe. You ask if Humans have more control over our intra-specific weaponry than yeast cells- and relate it to politics, religion, and controlling resources. To this I beleive the answer is yes. We do have a measure of control, choices about what we believe and how we act on those beliefs. In this way we are "different" from the yeast cells" and we have an ability to affect changes in the world. Without that belief, life on this earth would be rather gloom and doom-hopeless.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Susan I´m convinced that life on this earth is full of promise and plentiful diversity in the future, as always. Our own situation should be worried about however, which is why I´m trying to bring focus on to plain reasoning, rather than linger on at colourful but useless fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jon I'm very intrigued by your dialog here. I guess to bring this back to my original post - about Mary - and to bring your argument, if I have this right, that "Mary" invented a scenario (to explain an infidelity to her parents). I've been trying to fit this as a logical assumption, ok? Not trying to shot it down, just test this assumption to see if it real.

    About 6 months after this fictitious account, Herod sent soldiers to Bethlehem to massacre all male infants. I don't know how many children were killed, but it is seriously doubtful that Joseph and his young bride would not have known about it even though they escaped to Egypt.

    Josephus, a historian of this period and respected as an external scholar, devotes a great deal of his writing to the life of Herod. He doesn't mention this slaughter of infants, but does explain how Herod's actions might have made this possible. Luke didn't make mention of the murder of these children, but the gospel of Matthew does.

    I guess one has to ask, did Matthew fabricate the account of Herod's slaughter of the Bethlehem infants? Matthew’s narrative is a reliable first century document is a legitimate approach to history, so don't dismiss it simply because it is part of the New Testament or the bible, ok?

    I've parented a couple of teens, sat the on the other side of the table from Mary's predicament. Not to go into details, just trying to give my account some "real world" validity. Now, this father could have asked if his daughter was raped. He also might have assumed that she had simply slept with Joseph. I don't know, the stopping point here is to just be real - would Mary have fabricated this story given the consequences? Hundred of children slaughtered? Joseph wanting to disown her? A come back to this is - "dad, I a virgin, this is from God and an angel told me I was going to have this baby."

    Fine, I guess if that is the logic where this is going so be it. All I ask is that you give the internal validity of these bible text due credence in your own decision about this matter.

    I fully understand your doubt about the angelic visitations. Really, I do. However, is your dismissal of these "visitations" based on your own perception of not having been visited, that these are figments of one's imagination, or is it simply belief? How would you reconcile the fact these visitations actually occurred, even if you don't believe them, if they explain a vital part of these events? How would you explain that 3 people were visited according to these ancient texts - Zechariah, Mary and (lastly) Joseph. All I ask is for internal validity - with an open mind - to start with.

    I am not trying to play with your mind, twist you into believing this account, or otherwise manipulate you in anyway... just bring the dialog back to the original premise.

    Anyway, you've spent a lot of time writing here and I so appreciate your frank narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ken, to "bring back the dialog to the original premise" I´m afraid would be to believe in this pre-science fiction, which has been wrought upon unsuspecting young as well as old for the better part of a couple of thousands years, and I´m on a mission to end that, so I´m sorry I can´t be helpful in explaining "visitations" that took place in someone´s imagination for whatever reason those parties would have had to make up these wild stories. If indeed visitations should be so commonplace as happening for 3 persons so closely related within a short time, why would similar situations not take place in recent history, and be recorded by modern technology, which for some reason doesn´t seem to be able to record flying saucers either, or other kinds of spiritual "visitations" by dead people talking to us "from the other side" I´m sorry because it is all utterly mumbo-jumbo and ridiculous nonsense. I have as much right to proclaim that without presenting any form of evidence, as the holy books themselves present none such. We are discussing on perfectly even terms in that respect. I am reciting "Book of JON" any old chapter now. I´m not intending any kind of ridicule, just trying to make a point that the age of any text does nothing to support the credibility of the same, but rather the opposite I should say. After all would you recite any 2000 year old medical text in epidemology? I don´t think so. Yet somehow you feel safe in leaving your "soul" in the hands of texts of which you have no idea of origin, and which certainly has been edited over and over again by countless generations of politically correct clergy of several faiths. Anyone with a head right on their shoulders should not pay five minutes of attention to the credibility of such texts, little more than we regard Star Trek a credible scenario, however entertaining and colorful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Internal validity of the text, that is all I ask.

    What does an angelic visitation "buy" Mary in this situation? The answer is nothing!

    Her proposed "fabrication" doesn't help her predicament one bit. Putting this in historical context: Joseph isn't convinced, I doubt Mary's father was convinced and I seriously doubt her explanation was published in the Nazareth Daily Herald.

    Aside from that, what can we conclude about Mary's explanation? Logic leads us to three possible outcomes:

    1) She is lying. This is the most common rationale and the one you claim in your response.

    2) She is mentally deranged. Ever hear of the 80s song by the Black Crowes? You know, the one "She Talks to Angels." Black shades and pain, you know... the whole "the lights are on, but nobody's home" chick who thinks she is an orphan?

    3) She is telling the truth. Not a truth immediately accepted by Joseph or her family (with the exception that her cousin Elizabeth seems to have some inkling about it).

    Anyway, we aren't going to resolve this without some sense of logic and you've been very respectful here. But, in the end there is an element of reason and an element of faith. I didn't become a Christian solely because of logic, but I didn't check my brain at the door either. Yes, there is the possibility of political correct copying and retelling of the story. I agree. But, I'd like to take you back to my "original post" (an example of recopying with error right here on the blog, sorry for the pun), and see that I referenced the Isaiah prophecy and the Dead Sea Scroll. It may not "do it" for you, just compare dates in your research. Isaiah 7:14 was it about a "virgin" or a "young girl" and was he talking about something in his day, or was he speaking of the future?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ken, dead sea scrolls was written in a language nobody speaks anylonger. I think the people who translated them to modern languages probably had to guess about a lot of things. You just try to translate something from english to chinese in Google Translate, but try not to be in the same room as the chinese person you´re trying to communicate with, because chances are you´ll either be the laughing stock of the day, or cash in a black eye. Even translating danish into english, two languages with so similar roots, turns into unintelligible nonsense. Bad program yes maybe, but what guarantees do we have that translation techniques from ancient dead languages are any better? Logic is what we need, faith in what ancient texts might mean is useless for handling real life problems. I´m not discounting all archaological research, but I´m saying that religious people need to start living in the most recent century, if we are to progress anywhere. In old danish churches from catholic days, there is a socalled "vĂ¥benhus", = weapons house, an ante room to the church, where people were obliged to check in their weapons. Not a very effective system, since it didn´t keep people from getting murdered in churches anywway, so I think at some point in time, they did change the function of the room, to a place where people checked in their common sense and logic, in order to further be able to appreciate the wild and illustrious stories told in the church, but as time went on, they forgot to pick it up again, when they left after the mass, and now we have a situation where all the descendants again have to develop those qualities...extreme sarcasm may have been applied in this comment, and should be smiled at mildly while shaking your head.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JON, Danish language? Gee, I know a guy from there! You are a very kind, don't worry not offended.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But Ken are you ready to hear my preachings? As a new prophet, I will mingle with unbelievers to provoke them into seeing the light. Just as the first christians walked among unbelievers, you are an unbeliever to me. You look upon my opinions with a scent of scorn and the distance of someone who knows better. The image of "true christians" as I have met them throughout my life in the form of many sects and biblical expressions. What would it take for me to move your "faith" to something that might match your line of work better, and which could actually change the physical course of the econonomical development of yours and mine society?

    ReplyDelete