Wise Men Follow a Star

The late, great, four-star General George S. Patton, famous for his command of the American Armored divisions that defeated the Nazis and Hitler during World War II, believed he had been a warrior in his many past lives. Biographers are quick to detract from his personal belief, explaining it to be spawned from the fact that Patton knew the ancient battles so well, that he felt like he had been there as a warrior. I, though I don't believe in past lives, think that if I did believe in it, I would have been a cartographer. I love maps. I'm always interested in how they were created, and what the explorer thought of the newly discovered lands as he mapped them out. I love reading maps. I love exploring them.  I love depending on maps (without a GPS). A few friends have even dubbed my map skills as the MPS (Mike Positioning System). I always want/need to know where I am, and I'm always keen to point out alternate routes (to the chagrin of my friends driving the car) if I feel we should be headed that way.
I mention this anecdote because I feel a particular comradery with the Magi of the Nativity story. They made the arduous journey for many months to seek out the Christ child in Israel many centuries ago. They had maps, but they were led by another resource, the Star of Bethlehem. Their journey mimics the journey that all Christians should take to seek out Jesus in their present lives. I wish to focus on what we should take from this story's inclusion in the Gospel of Matthew, give it some context in history, and go through some misconceptions about the Magi, while also trying to find the truth behind the Biblical story. 

The Faith

The Gospel of Matthew is the only gospel that includes this story. It has been suggested that Matthew's message was meant for the Jews, hence his harping on messianic prophecies and how Jesus fulfilled them. Jews, if they were faithful to their scriptures, would know the references being made in Matthew and equate Jesus with the Messiah. Let's start with the first mention of the Magi and this new king of the Jews...

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem ² and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." - Matthew 2:1-2 (NIV)

The Magi, also called "Wise men", arrived in Jerusalem to try to find the newborn king of the Jews. It is clear that they are Jewish (possibly exiled during the Babylonian occupation), or at least recognize the importance of Jewish history, leadership, and prophecy through this passage. They knew he was born because they "saw his star" and were coming to "worship him". They naturally came to Jerusalem assuming the new king would be living in the seat of power, or the people in power would know where he was. The Gospel later says...

³ When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. ⁴ When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ⁵ “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
⁶ “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
    are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
    who will shepherd my people Israel.’” - Matthew 2:3-6 (NIV)

King Herod did indeed know where Christ would be born but only through the community teachers and priests; He did not know where the Messiah would be born himself. And he was troubled along with all of Jerusalem at this time. Why? Well it's important to remember the context of King Herod and 1st century Israel. In reality, Israel didn't exist as a country that we think of today. It was the province of Judea, as part of the Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar. It included a major commercial route at the time, from Egypt to the far east (Persia, India, China) and to Rome, Greece, and Anatolia in the north and west. It was also very close to the border with the Parthian Empire, which was a major rival to Rome at the time. Herod was a king only by the grace of the Emperor himself. He was not independent of the empire, nor would he keep his kingship if the Emperor thought he was sowing seeds of rebellion in his realm. King Herod would have been executed, had news gotten to Rome of a newborn king, who gained that title without the consent of the Emperor. Jerusalem would be dealt with harshly by Rome if they were seen as supporting a usurper, much like Israel would suffer about 70 years later when Rome put down the first Jewish Revolt. It was worrisome, and certainly Herod would not allow another king of the Jews to exist.


The Gospel continues...

⁹ After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. ¹⁰ When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. ¹¹ On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. - Matthew 2:9-11 (NIV)

It has been suggested that the Magi brought these gifts as representations of their foreign countries. It is unclear where the Magi came from exactly, other than what we know from verse 1, "from the east". As I'll explain later, these gifts were not commonly found east of Judea. Categorically, they'd be found south, not east. In addition to that fact, we can't assume that the Magi were 3 in number just because they gave three gifts. People didn't travel so exposed in that day, and certainly not that distance on major trade routes that would be filled with bandits and robbers along the way. If they had the money to undertake the journey, and give such valuable gifts, surely they had protection traveling with them, and there is no way of really knowing how many came to worship the newborn Jesus.

The Weird

How did the Magi know Jesus was born? What was "his star"? Why those three gifts?

Magi are lookin' FLY

 




The Magi
The term "magi" is the root from which we get the word "magic" but that does not add any meaningful association. What is important about this term is that there was a class of ancient astronomers that apparently were in seats of power of near east Asian countries of the time. It is suggested that Parthia, Persia, and India all had Magi in their royal courts because of their knowledge of the heavenly bodies. It's not so much that they interpreted the stars to mean certain things about those born in those times (like Astrology) but many ancient cultures saw omens in the sky and wanted those omens interpreted. If something out of the ordinary happened, those rulers in those countries would want to know what it meant. Some people full on suspect the Magi to be astrologers from the traditions of Zoroastrianism, a religion popular in Persia at the time, with 2.6 million adherents even today.
Some scholars say this is impossible, because God would not make astrologers an instrument of the confirmation of the coming of the Messiah because astrology is condemned in the Bible. (Isaiah 47:13-14) I see your scripture and raise you another, it's one of my faves...

¹ The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
² Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
³ They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.
⁴ Yet their voice^[b] goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world. - Psalm 19:1-4 (NIV) emphasis added

Now, I won't claim to believe even a little in astrology in its modern context. It's a curiosity and not a real good way to live your life. I feel they are subjected to self-fulfilling prophecies, i.e. "My horoscope said I would have a bad day, and look, I spilled my coffee on my clothes. It must be a terrible day ahead." That kind of stuff is psychological and the stuff of "cold reading" (maybe someday I'll write about that too, but I honestly don't know how I'd pair it with a Biblical topic). It's hogwash.
Back to the topic at hand, I believe the Magi could have been astrologers in the ancient context. Astronomers and Astrologers were almost the same around this time in history. Both watched the sky in earnest for signs of what was to come. I would say, to trust the astrologer before the Bible would be the condemned part, but the skies certainly can inform us of what is to come, if we are looking for Biblical knowledge, not petty personal stuff. It is clear that whatever knowledge or observation was telling the Magi to go to Judea seeking the newborn king of the Jews was powerful enough and without question in their minds. Why else would they go on a journey with such confidence as to take months, even years to complete? It must be something they saw, which is where we get mention of the new king and "his star".

The Star
So if the Magi were part of a powerful class of astronomer/astrologers, wise, and rich (evidenced by their gifts to Jesus), how do we explain the star of Bethlehem?There have been a myriad of explanations for the Star of Bethlehem. Some say it was a conjunction, or close passing of planets or other celestial bodies that would have produced a brighter than usual "star" or other symbolic meaning. This is a pretty popular theory. Others say it was a nova (new star) that was seen around the time of Jesus' birth. Still others say it was a supernova (where a star temporarily brightens before exploding). These theories put forth reported nova, supernova, and conjunctions of planets/stars that would produce a bright light noticeable to the naked eye, and certainly noticed by the Magi. Modern astronomers have turned back the clock to reveal multiple conjunctions and even a "Star of Bethlehem" joining of Jupiter and Venus around 2 B.C. There is a problem with that, however, in that the most probable year for the birth of Christ is 4 B.C.
 We know Herod executed all the male babies 2 years and younger in Bethlehem whenever the Magi went back to their origin by a different road (Matthew 2:16). We also know he learned this date from the Magi. So by this, we know Jesus to be almost 2 by the time he was visited by the Magi. So, the Magi could not have prepared and gathered themselves for their journey with enough time to see Jesus before he was 2 years old unless this special star was seen by at the latest 3 B.C. ... not 2 B.C.There is another problem with the conjunction theory, in that these conjunctions happen so commonly, that it is impossible to say which one set the Magi's trip in motion. See this website for pictures and further explanations of the conjunction and other theories.

It's possible that there was a nova or supernova which attracted the Magi's attention, and they would last a fair amount of time to be seen during their trip.

Chinese records show a nova in the constellation of Capricorn in 5 B.C. before Christ's probable birth, but no others around that date. It also is unlikely a supernova would have been missed by record-keepers, as there is no mention of one. However, it remains a possibility, ever so slightly. It's possible also that the Magi had a heavenly being, such as an angel, point them in the right direction. However, they do not distinguish between the star that gets them to Jerusalem and the star that gets them to Bethlehem, and I'm sure many would have followed the Magi if there was a heavenly being roaming around Mesopotamia for a few months guiding them. That, however, remains another slight possibility.

I postulate that the Magi did see a conjunction, or perhaps a combination nova and conjunction that had some association with Judea, the Jews, and kingship. That combination gets them to Jerusalem, but not to Bethlehem, where they were led by the star once more. The conjunctions and nova commonly sited as candidates would not be able to move as to be seen in the western sky, then suddenly the southern sky, which would have been the route to Jerusalem, then to Bethlehem. The Gospel says it "rose", "went ahead of them (the Magi)" , and "stopped" over the place where Jesus was. This could have been a UFO (thanks Ancient Aliens) but the explanation given for a retrograde Jupiter kinda sounds nice.
Jupiter is known as the king of the planets, mostly because of its prominence in the sky and the fact you can see it with the naked eye. Something to do with Jupiter surely would make the Magi think a new king was born or was about to take power. It has been shown that Jupiter would have been in the southern sky and would have stopped its procession across the sky to go into retrograde motion, meaning it looks to be standing still before moving again in the opposite direction for a few months. It's possible this stop in motion led them to Bethlehem and the house where Jesus was.
We know Herod put to death several dozen infants 2 years and younger to try to kill this newborn king of the Jews, so there must have been many newborns and toddlers. How did the Magi know which house? This, I think, is explained if we assume that because the Magi cared enough to worship a Jewish king, they cared to find out what other prophecies were being fulfilled in Him, and that would have narrowed down the search.

The Gifts
So once the Magi get to the infant/toddler Jesus, they bring Him three gifts... Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh. Biblical scholars suggest these gifts are symbolic to the roles in which Christ would find Himself. Gold is considered a gift fit for a king. Jesus would be a leader and a king, but not in the worldly sense. Frankincense was used in the incense of the Jewish temple, showing Jesus to be a future priest of the covenant. It was also used to anoint newborns and people entering a new phase of life. Myrrh was similarly an incense and used to anoint kings and priests. It was also used as a perfume for a dead body, showing the symbolism of Christ's future death for the redemption of mankind. All of these gifts are found naturally occurring outside Judea. Frankincense is found in southern Arabia and eastern Africa. Myrrh is found in a wider expanse of the same area. Gold would have been most likely from Africa, but there are multiple known ancient gold deposits across Africa and the near east. It is clear the Magi, if they did come from the east, did not bring these gifts from their home countries as a representation of the naturally-occurring resources in them. What this says is that the Magi knew their gifts were important and expensive, fit for a king, and possibly even prophetic to Jesus' future as redeemer. It is clear that, even if the Magi did not know that these items played a big part in foretelling Jesus' life, they certainly were common gifts for kings, and used in Jewish rituals, both of which fit their understanding of Jesus as the new king of the Jews.


Conclusion

It's important to recognize the context of the coming of the Magi, and how it informs the current human race. Like all Biblical stories, we are asked to take some things on faith. There is no way to know what exactly made the Magi make their journey. They cared enough about leadership of the Jewish people to take a long journey in order to worship a new king. Certainly, they had faith in their reasoning to do so. They were also not afraid to bring kingly gifts to this new king, even if the present rulers of the country were troubled by the news. It mimics the attitude that all should have when seeking Jesus in our lives today. We should be certain of our reasons for worship, go boldly regardless of stops along the way, continue to follow Him until you find Him, and bring gifts that might be used for the best of the body of Christ.

~ Buzz

"Black Santa" and the Tradition of Santa Claus

There has been big news over the last week and a half about a show host on FOX news saying that Santa and Jesus were White. Moreover, that these characters are both historically accurate and verifiable in those descriptions. Now, I won't get into the fact that this is a horribly close-minded view of Christmas and Christian history, or that anyone with half a brain would know that Jesus was Jewish and of the Semitic peoples of the Near East (hence, non-white). My purpose for writing this post (my first in a year) is to highlight the issue of assigning race/ethnicity to any culturally important figure, whether they are fictional or historical or both. And as I always try to do on this yearly (hopefully soon monthly) blog, I will give you the faith-filled side of the story, then give you the weird stuff, with 'weird' used loosely because anything interesting to me has to be slightly odd or unknown.

The Faith

 

Most people know Santa's many names, such as Father Christmas and Kris Kringle, so it should be no surprise to most that one of his other common names, St. Nick, is based on a 4th Century Saint by the name of Nicholas. He lived as a Greek bishop in the city of Myra, a small Roman town in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) at a time when the Roman Emperor Diocletian persecuted all Christians.

St. Nicholas was definitely a badass (in a strictly Christian way)

Because he defied the authorities, Nicholas spent much time in jail for his "crimes". When Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal in the early 4th century, Nicholas was free to continue his leadership of the local churches and many miracles are attributed to him. His feast day in the Catholic and Orthodox Christian religions is December 6, the day he died in 343AD. This day is still celebrated by religious peoples because of the many stories about St. Nicholas "The Wonder-worker", totally separate from the Santa Claus mythos.

One such story serves as the basis for the Santa character's love of children and his gift-giving tendencies.

A poor man had three daughters but could not afford a proper dowry for them. In absence of any other possible employment, the daughters would have to become prostitutes. Hearing of the girls' plight, Nicholas decided to help them. With Nicholas being too modest to help the family in public (or to save them the humiliation of accepting charity), he went to the house under the cover of night. He threw one purse filled with gold coins through the window opening into the house for the daughter that was to come of age the next day. Over a period of three years, Nicholas sent his purse of gold through their window the night before one of the daughters would come of age. In the third year the father tried to discover the identity of their benefactor. The father confronted Nicholas, only to have Nicholas say it is not him the father should thank, but God alone.

Because of this story, and a few others about his rescue/resurrection of children, St. Nicholas had a fair following in the churches up until the Protestant Reformation. Through the Middle Ages, St. Nicholas took on some aspects of pagan gods, gaining a big white beard and the ability to fly. Because of St. Nicholas, children were taught to say their prayers and do good deeds. Because of the veneration of Saints deemed unholy in the new Protestant churches, and with the tradition of gift-giving at the end of the year firmly established in the Christian world, the Baby Jesus took the place of St. Nicholas. But because his image as a fatherly but robust and even scary figure, Baby Jesus could not fully take the place of St. Nick on Christmas night. So he was given a helper.

The Weird

 

Baby Jesus gave the gifts, but in Germany and across Europe his scary sidekick "Ru-Klaus" or "Pelznickel" would act as the guy dishing out punishment to bad children and did all the grunt work for the infantile Jesus.

 Pelznickel, after murdering every furry thing in the forest.

But some families, especially those in the Netherlands, didn't want to follow the changeover to Baby Jesus. They kept on with their traditions of the gift-bringing "Sinterklaas" and these traditions found their way to America centuries later. In poems and books written in the early 19th century, American writers remade Nicholas (and by extension, Santa Claus) by giving him a flying wagon and gifts to deliver to all good girls and boys (along with switches to the bad ones). In 1822, Clement Clarke Moore wrote, "A Visit From St. Nicholas," which I'm sure you can remember by its first line, "Twas the night before Christmas". St. Nicholas started to gather characteristics of all gift-givers from Christmas traditions across Europe, such as the shaggy furs from Ru-Klaus and the immortality of Baby Jesus. In other poems, stories, and pictures, we get the descriptions of Santa Claus as various as you can imagine. Eventually, by the end of the 19th century, we get the familiar description of Santa that has endured to today. Jolly, fat, white-bearded old man with a red suit with a sack over his shoulder filled with toys (or just a fat, white-bearded car salesmen if you believe Chevy).

The Character of Santa Claus

Thomas Nast's Traditional Image of Santa.

 

My point is that the image of Santa Claus has always been changing and is relative to the traditions of the area in which you decide to celebrate Christmas. Saint Nicholas, although he is the historical basis for the myth of Santa Claus, is not a direct representation of him and never will be. Otherwise we would probably have a grey-bearded, olive-skinned, definitely thin Santa, dressed in bishop's vestments and carrying a Bible. Even that 'historically accurate' representation of St. Nicholas would be off, just because we know only so much about him. What's important to understand is why the myth has become what it is today, and why it is foolish to argue against other representations of such a character. We know the modern image of Santa has little to do with the historical St. Nick. The Tradition in Christian homes (and most American homes) is to celebrate Christmas and Santa, as he is represented currently, as a white man. That doesn't mean all homes in America or the World should adopt such a representation of their Christmas gift-giver, and it allows those from differing ethnic and social backgrounds to adapt Santa to something they are familiar with. Does this mean there can be a Black Santa? Yes, and Macy's agrees.

A mythical figure can have a traditional image, but the society in which he exists is allowed to dictate that image. Just because writers from 19th century America said he had rosy cheeks and pearly white skin doesn't mean he will stay that way. However, don't go crazy thinking about Santa suddenly becoming a thin Indian man with black hair driving a Mercedes. The commercialization of such a character means he is likely to stay in the traditional image for the foreseeable future (if he was anything else, customers wouldn't recognize him). Throughout history there are examples of folktales or folk heroes changing nationalities, ethnicity, sizes, and shapes to fit the society in which they existed. Folktales and stories propagate by story-telling, and in the telling of stories outside of modern technology, Kindles, and record-keeping, "facts" of the story change.

'Historical' Santa

The historical Santa wasn't named 'Santa' at all. Is that something we need to change or argue against? No, because the 'historical' Santa is not the character that gives gifts to good girls and boys on Christmas Eve. And because of that, I think there can be a Black Santa, the same reason there can be an Indian Santa, a Chinese Santa, etc. The inclusion of the many nationalities and skin colors is what makes the tradition strong in the eyes of the people celebrating it. It is not something a culture owns and patents as 'verifiable fact'. The culture adapts the tradition to include the society in which the tradition is being practiced. This is what happened in early 19th century America, adapting and combining a Christian religious figure with gift-giving tendencies, the German helpers of Baby Jesus on Christmas night, and the Dutch Sinterklaas into Santa Claus. Perhaps, in the next couple centuries, writers, artists, and poets in our society will dictate that a new image for Santa Claus become the norm.

Have a Merry Christmas!

~ Buzz

Further reading/source: St. Nicholas to Santa