question about twelfth night

[cellio]

The oddest questions come into my mind sometimes. Today's came while reading an article about festivities of the day. I suspect I have both readers with the same question and readers with the answer, so I'll ask here. (Tried Wikipedia, tried Google.)

The feast of epiphany is on the 12th day of Christmas. The magi weren't there from the start; the star showed up on the day of Jesus's birth and, after seeing it, the magi spent some time getting there. (I don't know if that's in Christian scripture or tradition or what, but I understand it to be consensus.) Epiphany is the celebration of the magis' arrival.

The Christian bible tells us that Mary had to give birth in a stable because there was no room at the inn.

Every nativity scene I have ever seen shows the magi and everyone else crowded around the child -- in the stable.

Are we to understand that the family is held to have camped out there for 12 days? Or did artistic license get way out of hand and it wasn't worth the trouble to rein it in?

From what I've seen, these sorts of questions are less a part of Christian tradition than of Jewish tradition. So just to be clear lest I offend: this is sincere curiosity.

Comments

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Seems reasonably likely: the "stable" in question was actually, most likely, an overflow area for people, too. Where else are they going to go? They found a spot -- it's not like the place would be particularly LESS crowded twelve days later. . .

[cellio]

it's not like the place would be particularly LESS crowded twelve days later. . .

I don't know. They were there for a census or tax collection or something like that, right? How long does that take?

[kayre]

The magi show up in the Nativity scenes because we're impatient, and because they're part of the essential story even though they showed up late.

Very late, in fact-- the story itself gives clues that they may have arrived months or even years later, and they went to 'the house where they (Mary, Joseph and Jesus) were staying.' So yes, there's artistic license, and compression of the story, and a lot of folk tradition involved. All those nativity scenes probably show 3 magi, too, when the number isn't given in the gospels-- the 3 is because three gifts are named, that's all.

[cellio]

Thanks. I didn't realize that there were traditions that had years passing. (I knew that three visitors wasn't in the text.)

Hey, is that a new userpic?

[kayre]

Well, Herod has all the boys 2 years old or younger killed, indicating a lot of time (and some uncertainty).

Not a new userpic, I just don't use it often.

[mortuus.livejournal.com]

Artistic license. From what I've read, Jesus was likely around the age of 2 by the time the wise men showed up.

[cellio]

Thanks. Is the star supposed to have lingered that long, or did the wise men get a burst of insight and knew where to go from there?

[mortuus.livejournal.com]

No one knows. Anything related to that would be pure speculation.

speculation aided by running a planetarium backward

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

Well, it could be that the conjunction[*] gave the astrologer magi enough info on where to go, and their arriving after it was no longer visible wouldn't mean they were any less guided by it ...

[*] One popular hypothesis recgarding the star in question was that it was a conjunction of three planets making an extra-bright spot in the sky; even if the magi noticed it was a conjunction and not a mysterious new star, it would've been an astrologically significant event. IIRC, that hypothesis is also one of the data that point to Jesus having been born in 4BCE, but it's been a while and I may have misremembered.

Re: speculation aided by running a planetarium backward

[zachkessin.livejournal.com]

There was an article in the December Sky and Telescope about what the "Star" might have been, it gave several ideas but said none of them were consitant with the text in one way or another.

My personal thought is that the most plausable thing is that it was an astrological not astronomical event that sent them. but thats a WAG at best.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

From what I've read, Jesus was closer to 6 months old when they showed up. In any case he had to have been at least a month and a half old, as the Holy Family went *to Jerusalem* for the purification ceremony, which according to Leviticus is after thirty-three days for a male child. There is no way they would have done this after the wise men got to Jerusalem and spooked Herod!

A LOT of Artistic License

[rob-of-unspace.livejournal.com]

It's a combination of analysis that's quite similar to the whole Talmud/Midrash. For example, three gifts, hence there must have been three wise men. Stuff gets added and moved around also to make the story easier to tell.

The names of the "three wise men" (Magi, or Zoroastrian sorcerers -- apparently a problem for both the early church and more recent translators) were not Gaius Baltar, Mel Gibson, and Casper Weinberger. Santa didn't show up at the manger and there's no evidence of a little drummer boy -- or the baby Jesus crying when the little drummer boy stopped because that meant the little bass player was next.

The poor Archbishop of Canterbury pointed this out and folks like Powerball of Powerblog have been saying nasty things about him because he stuck up for what's actually in the Bible.

In the early church, Christian apologists would say "If you don't believe my arguments, look at the lives that have been changed by knowing Jesus Christ." Now adays, we say "Please ignore the Christians and look at my arguments!"

Sigh.

Re: A LOT of Artistic License

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

I think that this captures the thread -- "Easier to tell." Lots of oral tradition, as you know, compresses and changes so that things are easier to tell and understand.

All through my Christian education I heard folks analyze this stuff by discussing the fact that Luke, where this story is most clearly told, wasn't an actual witness to any of Jesus' life, and gathered up stories and narratives and put them together into a mellifluous story.

Re: A LOT of Artistic License

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Curious, I went and looked up "Flight into Egypt," because in the Baptist tradition I grew up in the little family fled immediately after the visit. I found an interesting discussion (with moderately OK sources) in Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_into_Egypt

The various time-lines associated with the Roman rulers helps pin lots of potential realities down; they also discuss possible motives the writers of the 4 gospels had in what they discussed, including fulfilling a prophecy by Hosea about calling Jesus, like Moses, out of Egypt.

Re: A LOT of Artistic License

[cellio]

"Easier to tell" makes a lot of sense to me. What's more important in spreading a new religion, literal accuracy or conveying the Big Ideas?

(This might be why I so often got in trouble in Sunday school; a lot of my questions began "if it says X, then...".)

Re: A LOT of Artistic License

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Probably better than my, "But, that doesn't make sense..."

Re: A LOT of Artistic License

[cellio]

Thanks for bringing a smile to my face. ("Little bass player", eh? :-) )

In the early church, Christian apologists would say "If you don't believe my arguments, look at the lives that have been changed by knowing Jesus Christ." Now adays, we say "Please ignore the Christians and look at my arguments!"

You need both arguments and anecdotal evidence, at some level.

Things are more complicated now; there are so many bad examples who can get the public's attention. Fortunately we all know that not everyone claiming to be a Christian is a good exemplar; unfortunately, it can be hard for any community to police its extremists sometimes. (This is not a problem unique to your religion, of course.)

[indigodove.livejournal.com]

Part of my answer has already been covered -- compression of the story, not sure how many actually visited, etc. The nativity scene is tradition, and sometimes we don't let the facts get in the way of the tradition :-)

Also, though, there is some symbolism involved for the figures who are part of the traditional Nativity scene -- they symbolize that Jesus came for everyone. Not just the rich or a privileged few, but everyone. The shepherds symbolize Jesus' coming to the poor as well as the rich. The wise men are present to show that Jesus came for people of all nations and social standing.

So, no, they probably weren't all there at once. It's just some symbolic artistic license.

[cellio]

The nativity scene is tradition, and sometimes we don't let the facts get in the way of the tradition :-)

Oh, I completely grok that one, and you're certainly not the only ones who do it. :-)

Good point about the symbolism. Thanks.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

The folks who've already responded have covered it very well, but I'll add that I've also seen these points used as a fairly common hook for Christmas sermons: the "wise men" weren't there, and there's no reference to how many there were (let alone names). It's very unlikely that the "stable" was the a-frame barn we often see, but quite possibly more of a cave. The innkeeper often gets condemned in retrospect for being uncaring, but given that the inn may have had more in common with a YMCA gym floor full of evacuees than a ye oldefied Hilton (especially with the census crowds) it's debatable how bad the stable really was by comparison. Etc. etc.

People invest a great deal of devotion to their traditions, many of which owe more to Currier & Ives than they do to scripture. It's become popular to shake up some of those bits of common wisdom, at least gently, as a rhetorical trick to help people be thoughtful rather than just falling into midnight service autopilot.

[cellio]

I'm all for anything that gets people to examine their assumptions and get past the version they learned as kids. Your point about the innkeeper, for instance, is rarely heard (at least in my hearing).

[foxxydancr.livejournal.com]

Yes, they showed up later. the 12 days is a convention developed to make it a part of the catholic calendar.

In my family's nativity set, the wise men and their camels always get put on the opposite side of whatever flat suurface the set is on until Jan 6, when they get moved. Of course, we also keep Jesus in the sugar bowl until christmas morning, so we're perhaps a little odd.

[cellio]

In my family's nativity set, the wise men and their camels always get put on the opposite side of whatever flat suurface the set is on until Jan 6, when they get moved.

What a cool idea!

Sugar bowl? Is this a comment on sweetness, or just safe storage until the proper day? :-)

[foxxydancr.livejournal.com]

oh, it's just a safe place where he won't get lost. it's just something we did once, and somehow it stuck, to the extent that in my brain, it's the only logical place!