Were you born in a barn?
April 17, 2016
G.D.O'Bradovich III
introduction
We have previously discussed inconsistencies between the Orthodox depictions of the demonically possessed man and the Biblical narrative of the event [Vide]. With universal access to the Bible, the modern versions of the Orthodox icons have conformed to depict only one man. We concluded that the story of the demonically possessed man in the Orthodox Church must predate the Biblical version, as the text makes it clear that there is one man, not two men, that Jesus met. It is a reasonable conclusion that the Bible was unknown during the formative years of the Orthodox Church. We offer no speculation as the to the duration of the “formative years” of Orthodoxy.
Additionally, we have provided visual evidence demonstrating inconsistent Renaissance depictions of the crucifixion [Vide], the resurrection [Vide] and the Baptism of Christ [Vide]. Firstly, we concluded that Renaissance painters did not have access to one universally recognized Bible and, secondly, it is evident that there was no accepted artistic tradition regarding the obligatory elements for the respective stories.
The Council of Trent [1545-63] declared that the ancient Latin Vulgate Bible was the standard due, in part, to its long and established position in the church and Jean Hardouin [d. 1729] maintained that the Vulgate Latin Bible could not corrupted, since it was widely circulated. If these propositions were factual, either the text was long established or the text was universality known, then we would not have the confusing situation among Renaissance painters when they attempted to depict Biblical narratives with no insight, but their own judgment. Therefore, either one or both of the propositions are incorrect.
Additionally, we have provided visual evidence demonstrating inconsistent Renaissance depictions of the crucifixion [Vide], the resurrection [Vide] and the Baptism of Christ [Vide]. Firstly, we concluded that Renaissance painters did not have access to one universally recognized Bible and, secondly, it is evident that there was no accepted artistic tradition regarding the obligatory elements for the respective stories.
The Council of Trent [1545-63] declared that the ancient Latin Vulgate Bible was the standard due, in part, to its long and established position in the church and Jean Hardouin [d. 1729] maintained that the Vulgate Latin Bible could not corrupted, since it was widely circulated. If these propositions were factual, either the text was long established or the text was universality known, then we would not have the confusing situation among Renaissance painters when they attempted to depict Biblical narratives with no insight, but their own judgment. Therefore, either one or both of the propositions are incorrect.
Part the First
Of the four canonical Gospels, only Matthew and Luke relate the events surrounding the birth of Christ. We conclude that Christ's birth is not an important aspect of the good news for either Mark or the author of the fourth Gospel. We quote:
“And when they [the wise men] were come into the house... and worshiped him...” Matthew, 2:11
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the text seems to indicate that this is where the wise men find him. Of the ninety five instances that οἶκος (Strong's number, G3624) is found in the King James Bible, it is translated “house” ninety two times.
“And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son... and laid him in a manger...” Luke, 2:7
All four instances of the word φάτνη (Strong's number, G5336) are found in the Gospel of Luke; in the King James Bible it is translated by the word “manger” three times, and once as “stall”. The word φάτνη has its origin in the word πατέομαι patéomai (to eat); a crib (for fodder). From the text alone, it is not possible to discern if the manger were located in a barn, as suggested by the western church, or in a cave, as maintained by Orthodox tradition.
For the reader's benefit, we offer two icons of the Nativity; an older version, in Greek, and a recent version, in English. Both icons are consistent in that they depict Jesus in a manger in a cave.
“And when they [the wise men] were come into the house... and worshiped him...” Matthew, 2:11
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the text seems to indicate that this is where the wise men find him. Of the ninety five instances that οἶκος (Strong's number, G3624) is found in the King James Bible, it is translated “house” ninety two times.
“And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son... and laid him in a manger...” Luke, 2:7
All four instances of the word φάτνη (Strong's number, G5336) are found in the Gospel of Luke; in the King James Bible it is translated by the word “manger” three times, and once as “stall”. The word φάτνη has its origin in the word πατέομαι patéomai (to eat); a crib (for fodder). From the text alone, it is not possible to discern if the manger were located in a barn, as suggested by the western church, or in a cave, as maintained by Orthodox tradition.
For the reader's benefit, we offer two icons of the Nativity; an older version, in Greek, and a recent version, in English. Both icons are consistent in that they depict Jesus in a manger in a cave.
Part the Second
1. Matthew contradicts Luke
The version found in Matthew relates that the Magi worship Jesus in a house and this scenario is not unreasonable. However, the version found in Luke has Jesus in a manger, and it is not reasonable to have an animal feeder in a house. Therefore, it is reasonable that the two versions are contradictory.
2. Orthodox Tradition at variance with the Western Tradition
The tradition of the western church depicts Jesus in a barn or stable and and tradition of the Orthodox Church depicts Jesus in a cave.
3. Luke is not necessarily contradictory with either the Orthodox or the Western Traditions
Luke relates that Jesus was in a manger; a manger would most likely be located in a barn, although a manger placed in a cave is not unreasonable.
4. Matthew contradicts Luke, the Orthodox Tradition and Western Tradition
Although it is not unreasonable that the wise men worshiped Jesus in a house, this statement contradicts Luke's version where the wise men find Jesus in a manger. The Orthodox Tradition and the Western Tradition are consistent in that they both depict various livestock with Jesus and the Magi. It would be unreasonable to find domesticated animals in a house. Although Matthew's version of the nativity is internally consistent, it contradicts Luke and both church traditions. It seems that Matthew is unfamiliar with Luke's version of events and the Orthodox tradition. We presume that the Western Church's tradition of depicting the nativity in a barn is the direct result of being familiar with Luke's version of events, because assuming that the nativity was in a stable is not an unreasonable assumption.
From the preceding evidence, firstly, we propose that the Orthodox tradition of placing the nativity in a cave is the oldest version. Secondly, the author of Luke was aware of the the baby Jesus being found in a manger and worshiped by the wise men. Thirdly, because Luke's repeated mention of the manger, the western church reasonably assumed the events happened in a barn. Fourthly, since Matthew's explicitly contradicts Luke's version and both church traditions, we conclude that it was written after Luke's version.
We suggest that Matthew's version was written to create confusion in the minds of the faithful regarding where Jesus' birth occurred. Is there any additional evidence to confirm that Matthew's Gospel was written to create doubt in the minds of its readers?
The version found in Matthew relates that the Magi worship Jesus in a house and this scenario is not unreasonable. However, the version found in Luke has Jesus in a manger, and it is not reasonable to have an animal feeder in a house. Therefore, it is reasonable that the two versions are contradictory.
2. Orthodox Tradition at variance with the Western Tradition
The tradition of the western church depicts Jesus in a barn or stable and and tradition of the Orthodox Church depicts Jesus in a cave.
3. Luke is not necessarily contradictory with either the Orthodox or the Western Traditions
Luke relates that Jesus was in a manger; a manger would most likely be located in a barn, although a manger placed in a cave is not unreasonable.
4. Matthew contradicts Luke, the Orthodox Tradition and Western Tradition
Although it is not unreasonable that the wise men worshiped Jesus in a house, this statement contradicts Luke's version where the wise men find Jesus in a manger. The Orthodox Tradition and the Western Tradition are consistent in that they both depict various livestock with Jesus and the Magi. It would be unreasonable to find domesticated animals in a house. Although Matthew's version of the nativity is internally consistent, it contradicts Luke and both church traditions. It seems that Matthew is unfamiliar with Luke's version of events and the Orthodox tradition. We presume that the Western Church's tradition of depicting the nativity in a barn is the direct result of being familiar with Luke's version of events, because assuming that the nativity was in a stable is not an unreasonable assumption.
From the preceding evidence, firstly, we propose that the Orthodox tradition of placing the nativity in a cave is the oldest version. Secondly, the author of Luke was aware of the the baby Jesus being found in a manger and worshiped by the wise men. Thirdly, because Luke's repeated mention of the manger, the western church reasonably assumed the events happened in a barn. Fourthly, since Matthew's explicitly contradicts Luke's version and both church traditions, we conclude that it was written after Luke's version.
We suggest that Matthew's version was written to create confusion in the minds of the faithful regarding where Jesus' birth occurred. Is there any additional evidence to confirm that Matthew's Gospel was written to create doubt in the minds of its readers?
Part the Third
The Orthodox Church and the Roman Church have long maintained that the Theotokos, or Mary, was a perpetual virgin. Since this tradition is not related in the Bible, it is not found among all the Protestant denominations. We suggest that the reason for this lack of perpetual virginity, and the resulting confusion, is due entirely to the Matthew's Gospel. We quote from the first chapter of Matthew:
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Although there is nothing extraordinary in the text, we note that “they” have not called the Virgin's son “Emmanuel”, as is suggested, but “Jesus”, as Joseph called Mary's “firstborn son”. The author has created doubt as to the name of Joseph's wife's son.
The implication of the text is that Joseph knew his wife after she “brought forth” her son. There is nothing unreasonable in the text, as it explicitly maintains the Christian tradition of a virgin birth. There is nothing contrary to reason that Joseph would have relations with his wife, however this explicitly contradicts Christian tradition.
From the explicit statement that Jesus was the “firstborn son”, it is reasonable to conclude that there was at least one additional male child. Once again, the text contradicts Christian tradition.
In the space of two sentences the author has:
The implication of the text is that Joseph knew his wife after she “brought forth” her son. There is nothing unreasonable in the text, as it explicitly maintains the Christian tradition of a virgin birth. There is nothing contrary to reason that Joseph would have relations with his wife, however this explicitly contradicts Christian tradition.
From the explicit statement that Jesus was the “firstborn son”, it is reasonable to conclude that there was at least one additional male child. Once again, the text contradicts Christian tradition.
In the space of two sentences the author has:
created doubt as to whether Jesus is the Messiah,
as he is not called Emanuel created doubt as to whether Joseph's wife was a virgin, since the Virgin's child will be called Emanuel created doubt as to whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, as Joseph “knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth ” Jesus. created doubt as to whether Mary had one son, or gave birth to other sons, as Jesus is called the “firstborn son”. |
Since Protestants assume the infallibility of Scripture, from the first gospel it is entirely possible for readers to understand that Emanuel is the name of the Messiah, that Jesus is not the Messiah, that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Emanuel Jesus Christ, that Mary was not a virgin, and finally, that Mary had at least two sons. As we are not seeking a consensus, the Gentle Reader may choose to believe as many or as few of the propositions as he feels is necessary.
CONCLUSION
Although Orthodox maintains a tradition of Scripture, this has not altered their teachings regarding the name of the savior, the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, and Jesus' lack of siblings. There is no indication that Orthodoxy will be altering their beliefs in the near future to conform to the narrative of the first gospel.
We recall that impiety is defined as "a perceived lack of proper respect for something considered sacred.”
As always, the Gentle Reader will form his own conclusions about the impiety found in the first gospel.
We recall that impiety is defined as "a perceived lack of proper respect for something considered sacred.”
As always, the Gentle Reader will form his own conclusions about the impiety found in the first gospel.