The Hidden Life of Jesus?

During the 2nd century certain writings about the childhood of Jesus emerged. They had a strong influence in the minds of Christians. Mention The Gospel of James, also known as the Protoevangelium of James. Mention the Ascension of Isaiah. Mention the Apocalypse of Adam. Etc. They are considered "apocryphs", that is, they are stories of "questioned authenticity". They are not considered canonical. Yet they have influenced the mindset of many Christians. This is an interesting topic in Christology where the "historicity" of Jesus is discussed.

We cannot simply invalidate the role of imagination in representing the childhood of Jesus. Maybe the historical evidence is lacking there but imagination may contain the meaning and wisdom about Jesus. But do we really have solid historical evidence of the hidden life of Jesus?

Jesus was from Galilee. Archaeology shows that families during that time--1st century Palestine--lived in small houses with one or two rooms. In front of a house was a small court where other families would gather. In the court was a grinding wheel and a cistern shared by families. Villages had wine and olive presses. Galilee was an agricultural region. It was--and continues to be--a very green region. It is a lovely region today!

Jesus lived in Nazareth, in Galilee. The inhabitants of Nazareth were northerners--tribal people of the northern regions of Palestine. They were observing the Laws of Moses. The expectation for the coming of the Messiah was strong in the Galilee culture. But the region was also influenced by the Greek and Roman cultures. So some families had Greek names given to their infants. Remember Herod also from Galilee? His sons studied in Rome.

Now what about the family of Jesus. In Mark we read, "Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?" (6/3). There is no Greek nor Roman name. The name of the father, Joseph, is from as son of the Patriarch Jacob. "Mary" was taken from the name of the sister of Moses. "James" is taken from "Jacob". "Joses" is from Joseph. Simon is, well, a Jewish name, Simon. "Judas" is from Judah. The name "Jesus" itself is so Jewish, which is Yeshua, coming from Joshua, the successor of Moses. Might we say that the family of Jesus was not so impregnated with the mode of the time--taking foreign names? Jesus may have been from a Hebraic family attached to the Jewish faith.

There is this story of Mary and Joseph needing to follow the census of Quirinius. But Quirinius was a 6th century Roman Governor of Syria. Somehow this found its way into the Luke account. The historicity is therefore not exact. But underneath, there may have been a historical fact: the family of Jesus was among the families subject to harsh Roman rules, including payment of taxes. Galilee felt the pressure and tried to reject it. The family of Jesus obeyed Roman pressure with the hope that liberation was not from political revolt but from...somewhere else.

We see this in Jesus who suggested patience (see the parable of weeds among wheat in Mt 13/24-30; see Lk 17/23; 19,11). Jesus avoided confronting the Roman authority and was taking distance from political messianic expectations  (see Mk 12/17; 35-37).

Jesus was a carpenter--a real muscled carpenter who just did not hammer, he carried heavy rocks and stones. A (touristic) visit to ancient village ruins of Galilee will convince us.  Much likely after the death of Joseph Jesus took over the workshop.

The "infancy narratives" of Jesus are not to be taken as historical evidences. They, however, presuppose something historical. Allow me to take a position: the narratives TRANSLATE the experience of HISTORICALLY encountering Jesus, an experience that led to the faith in the messianic identity of Jesus that will be in full bloom after Easter. Remember that the narratives were written way after Easter, so they "retro-spect" and narrate about the entire experience with Jesus.

On Christmas and New Year: Some thoughts

A brief meditation on Christmas

The prologue of the 4th gospel mentions something about "camping". Well, not exactly camping beside the beach and having drinks and fun. It's a different kind of camping. The phrase goes this way: "The Word became flesh and pitched tent among us" (Jn1/14). The usual translation is: "...he dwelt among us". 

The creativity of God is revealed. First of all, there was the Incarnation. Secondly, this Incarnation involved the solidarity of God with all humanity. 

What exactly does "tent"mean here? Textbook Bible study will say that it is the place of encounter. So we see the image of Jesus playing the role of making it possible for us to encounter God, thanks to the Incarnation. Jesus entered in solidarity with us undergoing the same human conditions we have. Here is where we meet God. 

If we continue the phrase we read, "...we have seen his glory". Meeting Jesus we experience the glory of God. This has always intrigued me. There comes a point in Christian life when everything becomes routine and even meaningless. There's the routine of attending mass...the candles, the priests wearing this and that, the pictures, the statues, the moral codes, etc. It looks as if there is nothing so glorious in all this. It's all dry. 

But a brief pause makes me say that having seen the glory of God in Christ is what presupposes our faith. We are Christians because we have seen his glory--we have encountered him in the tent.  

A brief meditation on New Year

Let me recall things I learned from the classroom. Judaism has its own feast for the New Year. The Jews call it Roch Hachana. A friend of mine from Tel Aviv explained to me that Roch means "head" and it is already mentioned in the first verse of Genesis. "In the beginning" is a translation of "in the head". (B'reshit has the root word roch, head). Hachana is "year". So Roch Hachana is "head of the year". The celebration is said to be based on Nb 29/1-6. Bible experts (and those who can read well Biblical Hebrew) might need to correct me here, if in case I am in error.

First of all, the celebration is a kind of "shabbat" that recalls the creation of man and woman followed by the Lord's restday, the shabbat day. The Lord God took a distance from his own powers and domination to allow creation to "stand on its own feet", so to speak. Man and woman were to follow suit, being in God's likeness. God gave to humanity the opportunity to create too. So it's the "head" of a new path. 

Secondly, the celebration can also be associated with the sacrifice of Isaac. Fr. Barthelemy O.P. commented on this saying that Abraham was to get rid of his hold on Isaac and accept that the child--the future of Israel--was in God's design, not Abraham's. So the sacrifice was the "head" of a new path in history. God affirmed that the killing of Isaac was not in God's plan. What was to be killed was the egoism to destroy and dominate. I remember reading a curious rabbi commentary on this, saying that God ordered Abraham to go up the mountain with Isaac and BOTH WILL MAKE SACRIFICE. God never ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. So in a comic turn God may have said to Abraham, "Hey you stupid, who told you to kill the child?" And Abraham may have replied, "Ay mali". Very curious indeed and it was so different from what I learned in my younger days. Anyway...let the experts comment some more.

So "new year"--or Roch Hachana--has roots in creation and the Abraham cycle. Creation expresses the birth of life while the Abraham story expresses the capacity to kill life. So as we move from one year to a "new year" we are reminded of vigilance about life and vigilance about the capacity to kill and destroy. Roch Hachana is an occassion when we observe what we have done so far in order to determine what we should do next. Have we been destructive, violent, "too full of ourselves"? What is next then for this coming year? In a way we begin once more...just as the first verse of Genesis says, "in the beginning". In the beginning we be like God promoting life and rejecting death, destruction, violence. Roch Hachana is the occassion to re-evaluate the way we live, make an "inventory" of what makes us "create" and "destroy". Of course this also means evaluating ourselves and see if we are living according to God's hopes. 

St. Paul may have this to say. He was worried that members of the Church were dying one after the other--and the Kingdom just would not come. Those "falling asleep", have they "lost hope"? (See 1Thes 4). No. The dead in Christ will rise first, wrote St. Paul.

St. Paul had to assure people of the Church (of Thesalonica, actually) that a whole year did not determine the whole of existence. A whole year was just a fragment. It need not determine everything of who we are, including what we have done and what we expect. Ok, some may get sick, others may be killed in an accident, some may get rich and others go broke. Ok, that's what happened THIS YEAR. Do we then conclude that IN THIS YEAR everything has been said about life? No. Believing in the resurrection, St. Paul assured that we, still alive now, will rise after death. Meanwhile, let us "console each other". 

For St. Paul it is not THIS YEAR that says it all, it is God. The day of the new year is a "teaching" day when we can try re-orienting our lives in view of a good life willed by God, that we become a humanity of creation and not destruction. The new year celebration, again, is a time for inventory making. How can we, for the next year, correct ourselves, help each other, retain the vibrations of goodness and avoid whatever disfigures creation. 

Well, of course we do not forget Mary, the Mother of God. I remember reading from Caryll  Houselander the image of a dark and gloomy house that suddenly has its windows opened to bring in the light. Mary did this by allowing the Incarnation to occur. Her "yes" brought in the light to a rather gloomy way of living, so to speak. She started the new year. She was a kind of "head" of the year, so to speak. 

This is my take on the New Year.