I'm going to make what will probably be an unpopular confession. This is one of the times of year that I don't really like. The days leading up to Christmas are some of my least favourite. This is for a few reasons (someone once said that I always have more than one reason for doing or thinking anything, my reply was that without more than one reason, you're just floating), primary among them the over commercialisation of everything. The next is the self-righteous sanctimonious statements from people, Christians in particular, such as "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" or similar. The third major reason is I despise Christmas Carols and you almost can't walk anywhere without having your eardrums assaulted by countless versions of White Christmas (something unlikely to ever happen in Australia), or Silent Night (unlikely to ever happen in Sydney) or any number of others (this is just personal preference and is unlikely to ever be anything major). Now, I don't think that many people outside of the retail industry will disagree with me on the first dislike and the third is just a personal preference built over years of playing these over and over again. So what this will be talking about is the second and probably more controversial point. The whole mythology built up around Christmas is essentially false. Therefore most of the traditional Christmas things are falsehoods.
Before I go on I will clarify what I mean. What I don't mean is that people have been deliberately lying to you all these years (unless you've been told Santa exists - disregard this if you know that he does). One of the problems with a polygraph test is that if you think it is the truth, then the machine thinks that it is also. This doesn't mean that it isn't wrong, it just means that you are not lying. People still think of this as truth, therefore they are not lying, they are merely passing on well documented urban myths that they believe.
I should also clarify, this is nothing against Christianity. All I'm saying is that the 'history' of the myth of Christmas is incorrect.
First of all, and probably the most damning piece of evidence against this so-called history, is that Christmas was not celebrated until a few hundred years after the birth of Christ. This was because before this, celebrating a birthday was considered a pagan ritual and therefore not appropriate. One theory holds that later on, people started attending festivals such as the Saturnalia - the celebration of the dedication of the Church of Saturn, the Roman god of time. This particular festival was celebrated over a week before the 23rd of December (on the Gregorian calendar). It was decided that a Christian festival should be held to help believers be able to not attend. What better thing to pick than the birth of Christ. This, while clearly showing that the celebration wasn't primarily about the birth of Christ, isn't enough to be able to advocate a worldwide boycott of Christmas (something that will almost never happen). However, if you look at the way the Saturnalia was celebrated, it bears similarities to the Christmas celebrations. Everyone, regardless of social standing, would have a massive feed together and sit around having fun for a few days giving gifts to their friends and family(sound familiar?).
The other theory is that it replaced another festival called Sol Invictus, the birth of the unconquered sun in much the same manner. Isn't it coincidental that of the 365 days in a standard year that happened to be the date that Jesus was born.
Some of the myths of Christmas also need addressing, first but possibly not foremost is my personal favourite, the 3 wise men, but equally validly, all of the parts of your standard nativity scene, like the snow (which is fairly rare in the middle east). Many of these myths have been propagated and continued through the carol Away in a Manger. I'll look at the 3 wise men first.
The tale is that there were some magi (wise men, where we get the term mage from) who decided to pop around for a visit. Being chivalrous guys, they brought around something for their hosts; Gold Frankincense and Myrrh. The 3 gifts are where we get the 3 men from, because obviously there couldn't have been more than one person taking a traditional gift for a king at a time. Now in these times, magi were kind of a big deal what with being high priests and court officials and royal advisors and such like, so even if there was only one magi heading over, he wouldn't have been alone. He would have had probably a consort of guards, some slaves, camel drivers, apprentices and assorted others, especially since they travelled a fair way (Myrrh comes from Yemen - near India). Now one magi travelling on his own (not counting all of his employees) was also unusual. Traditionally they came from Persia (modern day Iraq) and so for only 3 to travel when they were part of a fairly insular sect of Zoroastrianism would have been almost unheard of. So in all likelihood there would have been a group of 10 or 15 magi and an entourage of about 100, a far cry from the 3 that has been espoused for around 1400 years.
Away in a Manger I dislike, not the least for its dissappointing chordal progression and scalar melody. However its lyrics were written by someone who wasn't aware of the situation that happened. The lyrics can be found here. Firstly, who romanticised a manger to be a nice looking cot that any mum would be happy for their baby to use? A manger is a feed trough. It was likely lined with a bit of hay left over from the animal's dinner, probably had manure around or in it and almost definitely wasn't 2 foot long (just long enough to fit baby, not long enough for him to move around). Next, the carol states that this was outside. No it wasn't. This, if we are going to assume it was at an inn - something that is also disputed, would have been for guests to keep their animals in. It would have been a covered shed. Next, cattle usually only low when they have been disturbed, this would in all likelihood wake any nearby babies. I have never seen a baby which was woken up without crying unless it was fairly sick (probably from lying in manure all night).
There are other reasons that this post could quite easily incite violence upon my person due to unpopular statements, but that would require much more length than I would like to give it. Add to that the fact that I am lazy and you really have most of my reasons against continuing this.
Anyway, I might not be back for a couple of months so until then, be safe, eat fruit and remember, it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
Before I go on I will clarify what I mean. What I don't mean is that people have been deliberately lying to you all these years (unless you've been told Santa exists - disregard this if you know that he does). One of the problems with a polygraph test is that if you think it is the truth, then the machine thinks that it is also. This doesn't mean that it isn't wrong, it just means that you are not lying. People still think of this as truth, therefore they are not lying, they are merely passing on well documented urban myths that they believe.
I should also clarify, this is nothing against Christianity. All I'm saying is that the 'history' of the myth of Christmas is incorrect.
First of all, and probably the most damning piece of evidence against this so-called history, is that Christmas was not celebrated until a few hundred years after the birth of Christ. This was because before this, celebrating a birthday was considered a pagan ritual and therefore not appropriate. One theory holds that later on, people started attending festivals such as the Saturnalia - the celebration of the dedication of the Church of Saturn, the Roman god of time. This particular festival was celebrated over a week before the 23rd of December (on the Gregorian calendar). It was decided that a Christian festival should be held to help believers be able to not attend. What better thing to pick than the birth of Christ. This, while clearly showing that the celebration wasn't primarily about the birth of Christ, isn't enough to be able to advocate a worldwide boycott of Christmas (something that will almost never happen). However, if you look at the way the Saturnalia was celebrated, it bears similarities to the Christmas celebrations. Everyone, regardless of social standing, would have a massive feed together and sit around having fun for a few days giving gifts to their friends and family(sound familiar?).
The other theory is that it replaced another festival called Sol Invictus, the birth of the unconquered sun in much the same manner. Isn't it coincidental that of the 365 days in a standard year that happened to be the date that Jesus was born.
Some of the myths of Christmas also need addressing, first but possibly not foremost is my personal favourite, the 3 wise men, but equally validly, all of the parts of your standard nativity scene, like the snow (which is fairly rare in the middle east). Many of these myths have been propagated and continued through the carol Away in a Manger. I'll look at the 3 wise men first.
The tale is that there were some magi (wise men, where we get the term mage from) who decided to pop around for a visit. Being chivalrous guys, they brought around something for their hosts; Gold Frankincense and Myrrh. The 3 gifts are where we get the 3 men from, because obviously there couldn't have been more than one person taking a traditional gift for a king at a time. Now in these times, magi were kind of a big deal what with being high priests and court officials and royal advisors and such like, so even if there was only one magi heading over, he wouldn't have been alone. He would have had probably a consort of guards, some slaves, camel drivers, apprentices and assorted others, especially since they travelled a fair way (Myrrh comes from Yemen - near India). Now one magi travelling on his own (not counting all of his employees) was also unusual. Traditionally they came from Persia (modern day Iraq) and so for only 3 to travel when they were part of a fairly insular sect of Zoroastrianism would have been almost unheard of. So in all likelihood there would have been a group of 10 or 15 magi and an entourage of about 100, a far cry from the 3 that has been espoused for around 1400 years.
Away in a Manger I dislike, not the least for its dissappointing chordal progression and scalar melody. However its lyrics were written by someone who wasn't aware of the situation that happened. The lyrics can be found here. Firstly, who romanticised a manger to be a nice looking cot that any mum would be happy for their baby to use? A manger is a feed trough. It was likely lined with a bit of hay left over from the animal's dinner, probably had manure around or in it and almost definitely wasn't 2 foot long (just long enough to fit baby, not long enough for him to move around). Next, the carol states that this was outside. No it wasn't. This, if we are going to assume it was at an inn - something that is also disputed, would have been for guests to keep their animals in. It would have been a covered shed. Next, cattle usually only low when they have been disturbed, this would in all likelihood wake any nearby babies. I have never seen a baby which was woken up without crying unless it was fairly sick (probably from lying in manure all night).
There are other reasons that this post could quite easily incite violence upon my person due to unpopular statements, but that would require much more length than I would like to give it. Add to that the fact that I am lazy and you really have most of my reasons against continuing this.
Anyway, I might not be back for a couple of months so until then, be safe, eat fruit and remember, it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
No comments:
Post a Comment