Context. I wrote this book, as explained elsewhere, to shed light on a boozy discussion I had with a couple of mates. But, I have always wanted to share the information and views I have put in this book. The title was intended to be amusing, on reflection, it isn’t. Heigh ho! I started a theology degree back in 1984 because I wanted answers to certain questions. This book contains some of the answers I found. Here’s a section about Jesus’ childhood.
Jesus’ childhood.
Did he even have a childhood? Did he actually exist? The first source is the ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ by Flavius Josephus, published around 93 CE. The only reason this text still exists is because the early Christians were keen to preserve it. The reason is clear. Firstly, he refers to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. The passage has been edited by Christian copyists, but it is clear that Josephus had acknowledged the existence of Jesus. Secondly, Jesus is briefly mentioned a 2nd time when Josephus points out he was the brother of James, about whom he has a lot more to say and his words here are free from later Christian interpolation. Josephus had no interest in Jesus, but he name-checks him. He thought James was the more significant figure. The Roman historian Tacitus writing in around 116 CE also refers to Jesus’ execution by Pilate. The Roman governor Pliny the Younger reported on Christian practise around 110 CE, and he assumes the events surrounding Jesus are factual.
These snippets are all one can reasonably expect about a man who barely ‘pinged’ Roman radar in his lifetime. However, they are evidence of his existence, and no credible historian, atheist or otherwise, denies their essential providence. There are people with vested interests who say ‘it’s all made up!’ and ‘he never existed!’ The burden of proof is on them. They have to disprove the evidence.
I won’t waste any more time on this matter. Yes, Jesus did exist and, like anyone else, he had a family. His mother was called Mary and let’s assume his father was called Joseph. Jesus’ dad is a shadowy figure in the gospels and has little role to play, it seems. It doesn’t matter. Jesus was born in Nazareth around 3BC, give or take a couple of years. There is one 1 in 365 chance it was on the 25th of December. He had four brothers called James, Joses, Judas and Simon (Mark 6:3) and several sisters, one of whom was probably called Salome. He also had two cousins called Mary and Martha, who lived in a village called Bethany just outside of Jerusalem.
Happy Christmas.
Perhaps the Christmas story is too famous to ignore, so I’ll address it. But it’s not essential to understand the Jesus of history because the Nativity is a myth.
One of the advantages of Mark’s gospel is that it has less theological accretions than the others. It certainly doesn’t have the Christmas stuff. When Mark opens his tale, Jesus is an adult. Jesus’ childhood is irrelevant, he’s only important for what he does in his preaching career. At the time he was alive, doing his thing, nobody would have known or cared about his unremarkable youth.
However, once Jesus had become the focus of a religion, his followers started developing myths about his childhood. They had to. There were birth myths for the other major figures of the time. Jesus’ story would have looked impoverished had he not been furnished with the same. So, the early Christian church went to work. They trawled the Old Testament scriptures, looking for ideas they could incorporate into Jesus’ birth narrative. Firstly, they were after ideas that would make Jesus look special. Secondly, and more importantly, they wanted texts that suggested Jesus, and his whole life, were prophesied. Their plan was to show that the events of Jesus’ life were no accident.
Of course, by then they knew what had happened. They simply had to find the Old Testament references that made sense of it. They had to demonstrate that Jesus’ life was part of a greater, divine plan. Of the four gospels we have in the New Testament, only Luke and Matthew have the Christmas story. Not a lot of people realise that. The question of why Mark and John don’t bother with the Christmas story isn’t asked, but it should be. Frankly, I don’t think Mark saw a need for it. John makes up his own tale that has Jesus pre-existing before creation with God.
The most striking element of the Nativity is the Virgin Birth idea. Matthew based this ‘prophecy’ on Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14,
“The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son; he will be called Immanuel.”
At least that’s what Christian versions of the Bible usually say, but it isn’t correct. It’s a bad translation of Isaiah, the better texts (like the Revised Standard Version or the Jerusalem Bible Readers Version) will concede this. The original verse in Isaiah said ‘young maiden’ not ‘virgin’. We know Matthew used a poor Greek translation of Isaiah called ‘The Septuagint’, which has this error in it, along with many others. And, of course, they called him Jesus, not Immanuel. The names don’t mean the same either. Jesus means ‘God saves’, Immanuel means ‘God is with us’.
Later, Christianity saw Jesus as a new Moses. So, like him, Jesus escapes a slaughter of many innocent children and he is taken to Egypt. The gospel writers used the Old Testament as a source of ideas. Similarly, Jesus is meant to be the Messiah, who was meant to be a descendant of King David, so a ‘genealogy’ of Jesus’ ancestors was invented, linking him to David and even Adam. They had no birth records with which to compile such a family tree. Jesus’ birth is set in Bethlehem because an Old Testament prophecy said the Messiah would be born there. Had that been the case, Jesus would have been called ‘Jesus of Bethlehem’. He never was. He was called Jesus of Nazareth, because that was where he was born.
The Christmas stories are charming, and one can take inspiration from them, but they are myths, not history.
John Poulton: Books 