Injecting the extrabiblical into the biblical

[Alcott]

A few weeks ago I started a new series of Bible discussions, "the 12 Weeks of Christmas," because it seems we did need a focus after several weeks of independent, per se, topics, and by beginning 'Christmassy' lessons this far ahead we can develop and broaden them to relevant considerations.

We looked not only at the pagan influences of some of our Christmas, and other holiday, traditions, but also how some extrabilbical ideas have been 'forced' into popular songs, stories, and visual arts. Examples included the countless Christmas cards that portray 3 bearded, crowned men on camels riding toward a stable, above which is a bright star with a long 'bottom pointer'; then the popular song with the pleasing melody, Do You Hear What I Hear?; and one I mentioned that most seemed to have never heard of-- the story, The Littlest Angel, which I told I remembered being read to us in school (yes, public school), and a television musical by Hallmark based on that story-- which is on youtube.com, as I checked.

The consensus seemed to be that, as long as the presentation has positive consequences, there is nothing wrong with any of these things. That, of course, is what I expected and said from the beginning. So I got more specific and asked, concerning Do You Hear What I Hear, "just what 'mighty king' is the one in the song?" In fact, are there more than 2 possibilities?-- Herod and Augustus? We know Herod's reaction to this news, and if the Roman Emperor knew-- especially if he were told by shepherd, who was told by a lamb, who was told by the wind-- it would be comic strip material. There was one woman in the class who seemed impressed by the story of the littlest angel, I briefly related, and I may find out if she still feels that way after watching the youtube of the musical, starring Johnny Whitaker, Fred Gwynne, and other big names. I didn't even mention another big presentation, Amahl and the Night Visitors, which was written for an annual television showing, beginning in 1951.

Anyway, what is your position, or attitude, toward injecting extrabiblical material into biblical stories? Does it-- or might it-- inspire nonbelievers to consider the biblical stories? Are they 'alright' as long as they show benevolence winning over greed, understanding over profit, faith over doubt, giving from the heart over giving from competition,.....?

 

[robycop3]

As one who, as an indy fundy Baptist, believes NO doctrine of worship not found in Scripture, I'm generally against it. However, I see nothing wrong with observing Christmas and Easter in the PROPER MANNER, keeping the human birth of Jesus, and His resurrection as the focus of out observance.

We don't fully know the story of the 3 "wise men", whether they rode camels or walked, whether they wore crowns or not, or what the "star" looked like. We also know those men didn't come immediately after Jesus' birth, as Matt. 2:11 says they came into the HOUSE where Jesus was, and Herod determined from them that Jesus had been born within the last two years.

Now, long as those stories don't CONFLICT with Scripture, I see no real problem. For instance the famous song "Little Drummer Boy" doesn't conflict with Scripture.

Christmas? Dec. 25 is the first day in the Northern hemisphere the sun can be seen to be moving toward the north, by observation of long shadows at sunrise & sunset, after the Dec. 21 winter solstice. Since we don't know the exact time of Jesus' birth, this is as good a guess as any. But again, let's remember that JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.

In summary, I see nothing wrong with such extrabiblical material, long as it doesn't conflict with Scripture nor add any doctrines to it, and people are encouraged to READ THEIR BIBLES DILIGENTLY.

 

[Van]

As we can see one way replace truth with falsehood is to spew an endless stream of falsehoods. When I visited the Getty Art Museum and gazed upon paintings depicting biblical objects, I was struck by how inaccurate they were. John supposedly writing one of his books, as a young man. Uh?

We must not reject stories or songs created to present an aspect of Christ (He brings goodness and life) but we should not base doctrine (what we teach others) on the views of men claiming the bible does not mean what it says.

 

[TCassidy]

Since we don't know the exact time of Jesus' birth,

Well, maybe not the exact day and hour but we can come pretty close.

I. Jesus could easily have been born on December 25.

The traditional date of December 25 for Christmas may well be in the proper time frame even if it is not perfectly correct. It has been the date commemorated for almost 1800 years.

Edersheim wrote, "There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections generally made rest on grounds which seem to me historically untenable."

"The subject has been fully discussed in an article by Cassel in Herzog's Real. Enc. xvii. pp.588-594. But a curious piece of evidence comes to us from a Jewish source. In the addition to the Megillath Taanith (ed. Warsh. p. 20) the 9th Tebheth is marked as a fast day, and it is added, but the reason for this addition is not stated. Now, Jewish chronologists have fixed on that day as that of Christ's birth, and it is remarkable that, between the years of 500 and 816 A.D. the 25th December fell no less than twelve times on the 9th Tebheth. If the 9th Tebheth, 25th December, was regarded as the birthday of Christ we can understand the concealment about it."

II. The shepherds did stay in the fields in December.

"Equally so was the belief that He (the birth of Messiah) was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, the 'tower of the flock.' This Migdal Eder was not the watch-tower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah leads to the conclusion that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for the temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if not impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads us to infer that these flocks lay out all the year round, since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover--that is in the month of February when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest." Edersheim

III. The wise men came while Jesus was still an infant.

There are several time landmarks in the gospels by which we can ascertain the time of the wise men's visit to the infant Christ.

1. The taxing of the world by Caesar Augustus while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

2. The death of Herod the Great.

3. The fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.

4. Jesus's age at the beginning of his public ministry.

Any time setting for the visit of the magi must be consistent with all four of these dates.

Caesar Augustus reigned from 31 BC until 14 A.D. Cyrenius was governor of Syria in 8 BC and again in 7 AD. Augustus conducted censuses three times in Italy: 28 BC. 8 BC. and 14 AD. He taxed Gaul in 27 BC. Egypt was taxed every 14 years starting in 20 BC.

While we have no direct local records of such taxing in Palestine there is no reason not to believe that Caesar ordered the census and taxation of Palestine during the first governorship of Cyrenius. This helps to validate the general history of the account but is not specific enough to help us in the actual time placement of events.

Luke 3:1 tells us that John began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. The same chapter v. 23 says that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry when he "began to be about thirty years old." Tiberius came to the royal purple in 14 A.D. Working forward, his fifteenth year (counting the year of ascendancy as a year) would be A.D. 27. Subtracting the 30 years of Jesus's age brings us to 4 BC. Jesus must have been born between August of 5 BC and April of 4 BC (the month in which Herod died.) Historically we know that Herod left Jerusalem a few months before he died so that February of 4 BC is the latest that the wise men could have found him in Jerusalem. Even if Jesus was born in late August of 5 BC he could not have been more than five months old when worshiped by the wise men.

In Luke 1:5 we see additional evidence for the December 25th date for Christ's birth.

John the Baptist's father was said to serve in the Temple and was of the course of Abia, one of the twenty-four classes or courses of priests according to 1 Chron 24.

Each course served for one week, twice a year. During the special sabbaths all of the courses served.

It was while he was serving in the Temple that the announcement of the birth of John was made to him. Elizabeth conceived after his course of duty in the Temple.

John was six months older then the Lord.

When did the course of Abiah serve? According to the Misna, from the third week to the fourth week of September. So, if John was conceived in late September, he would have been born 9 months later, in late June. If Christ was six months younger, He would have been born in late December!

One other very important point. The Eastern and Western branches of the Catholic Church have traditionally fought over the date of Easter, and Christmas. But the date of Christmas was much closer. The Western Church said December 25 and the Eastern Church said January 6. That is a difference of only 13 days. "Tradition" is not always wrong.

Think About It!