Those Are Some Educated Shepherds
Something had always not sat right with me about the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus. E.g. Luke 2: 1-15:
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
So what had always seemed odd (though I don’t remember if I had put my finger on it exactly) was that it seems everybody in the story–not just the “three wise men” but also the blue collar guys in the fields working the graveyard shift–knows all about the prophecy of the Messiah.
This makes sense if the story were just fiction; it’s not as if, say, Peter and Lucy would stumble upon an animal in the forest of Narnia who had no idea who Aslan was. (I really hope that never happened in the story, thus blowing up my “observation.”)
But in real life, I would have guessed that even token religious people weren’t up to speed on the predictions of their ancient seers. In our times, suppose the events described in Revelation started happening this Thursday. How many guys cutting lawns–even church-going Christians–would say, “Do you know what this means?!”
(BTW I include myself in this group. Without looking it up, I can’t remember exactly what the opening stages of Revelation would look like to us.)
Anyway, at church today our pastor addressed this point. He said that these shepherds weren’t just any old shepherds, but in fact were the people responsible for raising the animals that were used for sacrificial purposes (unblemished lambs, etc.). So in addition to an angel explicitly telling them what was going on, they also would have been better equipped to process it than, say, a Roman soldier.
Do any readers know how my pastor could have known such a thing? I mean, it doesn’t say that in the gospels.
Every Jew back then was aware of the prophecies of the Messiah. There is nothing remarkable about shepherds being aware of it. All Jews went to the synagogue and heard preaching every week and the Messiah is mentioned all throughout the Old Testament. This doesn’t mean that everyone was an expert on the subject, but just like you aren’t an expert on the Revelation you still are aware of it as are most Christians. It was the same for ancient Jews and the prophecies of the Messiah. As far as your preacher goes, there is nothing in the Bible that I am aware of that would indicate that what he said was true, but that doesn’t mean that you can throw his lie in at the end of your article as if that discredits the Gospel.
Interesting. I looked into this a little bit. I’ve seen several places that quote “The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah” by Edersheim (http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/) and it all seems to be based on the Migdal Eder, which is a tower where traditionally the angels appeared to the shepherds.
For example, from Rabbi Mike L Short:
“According to Edersheim in The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, in Book 2, Chapter 6, this Migdal Eder was not “the watchtower for the ordinary flocks that pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but it lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem.” A passage from the Mishnah leads to the conclusion that ‘the flocks, which pastured there were destined for Temple sacrifices…” (Shekelim 7:4) In addition, Migdal Eder is also mentioned by the Targums. Thus, Targum Yonatan, cited by Rabbi Munk, paraphrases Genesis 35:23 and Micah 4:8, “He spread his tent beyond Migdal Eder, the place where King Messiah will reveal Himself at the end of days.” What are we to make of all of this information from the writings of the rabbis? First, we know that Migdal Eder was the watchtower that guarded the Temple flocks those who were being raised to serve as sacrificial animals in the Temple. These were not just any flock and herd. The shepherds who kept them were men who were specifically trained for this royal task. They were educated in what an animal that was to be sacrificed had to be and it was their job to make sure that none of the animals were hurt, damaged, or blemished.”
(http://www.mayimhayim.org/Rabbi%20Mike/Migdal%20Eder.htm)
Don’t forget that while there were written records in their day, the main method of passing down tradition was through stories, told orally. Their culture was very “in tune” with their defining narratives as a culture.
Not sure where your pastor learned such a thing…maybe a commentary. I’m reading Borg and Crossan’s “The First Christmas” and it is really eye-opening.
I thought that all the Jews were waiting for the Messiah to come and liberate them, as it was not too long before Jesus’ birth that they lost their independence (again)?
“There is nothing now to conceal, but much to reveal, though the manner of it would seem strangely incongruous to Jewish thinking. And yet Jewish tradition may here prove both illustrative and helpful. That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem,18 was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, ‘the tower of the flock.’19 This Migdal Eder was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheepground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah20 leads to the conclusion, that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices,21 and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism,22 on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if not absolutely 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.23 Thus, Jewish tradition in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from that Migdal Eder, where shepherds watched the Temple-flocks all the year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak.”
From “Life and Times of Jesus Messiah” at http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book206.htm
Here are the footnotes:
18. In the curious story of His birth, related in the Jer. Talmud (Ber. ii. 3), He is said to have been born in ‘the royal castle of Bethlehem;’ while in the parallel narrative in the Midr. on Lament. i. 16, ed. W. p. 64 b) the somewhat mysterious expression is used )br( trybb. But we must keep in view the Rabbinic statement that, even if a castle falls down, it is still called a castle (Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 60 b).
19. Targum Pseudo-Jon. On Gen. xxxv. 21. 20. Shek. vii. 4.
21. In fact the Mishnah (Baba K. vii. 7) expressly forbids the keeping of flocks throughout the land of Israel, except in the wilderness – and the only flocks otherwise kept, would be those for the Temple-services (Baba K. 80 a).
22. This disposes of an inapt quotation (from Delitzsch) by Dr. Geikie. No one could imagine, that the Talmudic passages in question could apply to such shepherds as these.
23. The mean of 22 seasons in Jerusalem amounted to 4.718 inches in December, 5.479 in January, and 5.207 in February (see a very interesting paper by Dr. Chaplin in Quart. Stat. of Pal. Explor. Fund, January, 1883). For 1876-77 we have these startling figures: mean for December, .490; for January, 1.595; for February, 8.750 – and, similarly, in other years. And so we read: ‘Good the year in which Tebheth (December) is without rain’ (Taan. 6 b). Those who have copied Lightfoot’s quotations about the flocks not lying out during the winter months ought, at least, to have known that the reference in the Talmudic passages is expressly to the flocks which pastured in ‘the wilderness’ (wl) twyrbdm Nh). But even so, the statement, as so many others of the kind, is not accurate. For, in the Talmud two opinions are expressed. According to one, the ‘Midbariyoth,’ or ‘animals of the wilderness,’ are those which go to the open at the Passovertime, and return at the first rains (about November); while, on the other hand, Rabbi maintains, and, as it seems, more authoritatively, that the wilderness-flocks remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season – i.e. all the year round (Bezah 40 a). Comp. also Tosephta Bezah iv. 6. A somewhat different explanation is given in Jer. Bezah 63 b.
“He said that these shepherds weren’t just any old shepherds, but in fact were the people responsible for raising the animals that were used for sacrificial purposes (unblemished lambs, etc.).”
You are correct to point out that this claim is extra-Biblical. I, too, would love to know the source for this claim. Personally, I don’t think shepherds – no matter what the animals were being raised for – have any special claim to knowledge. The animals were not raised in any different way from any other animal – the Bible doesn’t say “the animals to be sacrificed shall be fed a steady diet of oats and hay and massaged thrice daily.” I think that claim is apocryphal at best and just made up at worst.
We all need to understand that oral histories are not better than written histories and anyone who says differently is not living in the real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFII-edH-Yo
If you can open this clip from Johnny Dangerously beginning at around the :32 mark you will see the point made with humor.
It could be a tradition mentioned somewhere in the Old Testament, or in an extra-Biblical history (e.g. the histories of Josephus or someone like him).
That may be correct but then it begs a separate question – which is – who decides what is authoritative with regard to the Biblical story? For instance, it is common (enough) knowledge that Quirinus was not governor of Syria at the time that the alleged Census was ordered. Those facts are, obviously enough, derived from non-Biblical source materials but when confronted by these facts Bible-believers engage in contortions only previously scene on That’s Incredible (with the obvious disclaimer to not try this at home). The point being that when extra-Biblical source materials are judged by believers they are judged for authenticity only to the extent that they confirm or buttress the Biblical account. The idea that these shepherds were “something special” gives us warm fuzzies because it makes the Biblical story more magical when in reality it is nothing more than wish-fulfillment or back-slapping.
I’m not sure whether Jesus actually existed or not but I do know this much – the story surrounding a birth and death like Jesus’ can be found for Horus, Mithra, Khrishna, et al. and all previous to the Bible account. It bears witness to the commonality of the story rather than its “specialness.”
I’m not exactly sure, but often theologians go back to the original Greek to find this kind of thing out. For example, there may be one word for a normal shepherd and another for a shepherd who raises sacrificial lambs. Both words may be best translated as “shepherd” in English, because we don’t normally differentiate.
That’s true. We are all familiar with the various words for love used by the Greeks – agape – etc. I am not familiar with any different words for shepherd but I will allow that as a possibility – because in the end that difference means very little in the grand scheme of the myth being portrayed.
knox, you ask us to believe that the writers of the NT fabricated even the tiniest details about Jesus and the early Christians knew these were complete and total lies because they had lived during the events described, yet most of them were quite willing to be thrown out of the synagogue and suffer all kinds of persecution, many of them being put to death, all for a lie that they knew was a lie. Now it’s possible that people will die for a lie if they don’t know it’s a lie and they belief it’s true. That has happened a few times. But to ask us to believe that people will die for a lie, and one that they made up themselves, is quite a stretch. It goes against all we know about human nature.
You remind of the famous Costanza quote instructing Jerry how to beat the lie detector – “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
Why do people set themselves up as religious authorities – David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Heaven’s Gate, Robert Tilton, Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, et al.? Because they want power and as a subset of that they want money and sex. The true understanding of human nature reveals not that this in fact goes against human nature but rather begs the question why it doesn’t happen with greater regularity. As the great religious leader L. Ron Hubbard told us not so long ago, “Get into religion, that is where the money is.” Personally, I view the Jim Baker, Joel Osteen, TBN-types as failed rock stars. They can’t sing or dance but they can certainly feed people something and gain power and money for doing so – and let’s not forget sex.
So tell me, what did the disciples of Christ get out of it, other than the loss of their property and lives? I understand what you’re saying about some religious leaders today and I agree somewhat, but none of that applies to the disciples of Christ who wrote the NT. An no religious leader in the US suffers the threat of death for their beliefs as the first disciples did. Christians in China face imprisonment and those in Muslim countries face death daily. So none of your theory applies to them, either. But they could still be following a lie that they think is true. However, that doesn’t apply to the writers of the NT, either, because if they knew for certain whether what they wrote was a lie or not. Can you show me any person in history who was willing to suffer the loss of property, persecution, and death for a lie that they had fabricated?
Keep in mind that I’m not saying that the fact that people will not suffer death for a lie they invented proves that the NT is historically accurate. The NT writers could have been sincere in what they wrote and still be wrong. But the critics who say they just made it up show an amazing lack of understanding of human nature.
What did L. Ron Hubbard get out of founding Scientology? Sycophants, money, power, prestige (among believers), etc. What did Joseph Smith get out of founding Mormonism? Young girls, money, sycophants, power, etc. What does Warren Jeffs get from his followers? Jim Jones? You assume, perhaps rightly but also perhaps wrongly, that the disciples were selfless seekers of truth and out for no ulterior motive. I don’t know that and neither do you. You assume because you wouldn’t die in pursuit of a false idea that they would not – unfortunately, again, that is just incorrect.
The disciiples may have died for the same reasons that soldiers do – solidarity with their “brothers.” There are no atheists in foxholes, right. Maybe they hung together rather than apart. But, let’s not forget Judas, apparently he was willing to cut against the grain for 40 pieces of silver even though he was an insider an apparently knew the truth.
Your post slightly tweaked to prove a point.
So tell me, what did the Founding Fathers get out of it, other than the [potential] loss of their property and lives? I understand what you’re saying about some political leaders today and I agree somewhat, but none of that applies to the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. An no political leader in the US suffers the threat of death for their beliefs as the Founding Fathers did. Constitutional advocates in China face imprisonment and those in Muslim countries face death daily. So none of your theory applies to them, either. But they could still be following a lie that they think is true. However, that doesn’t apply to the writers of the Constitution, either, because if they knew for certain whether what they wrote was a lie or not. Can you show me any person in history who was willing to suffer the loss of property, persecution, and death for a lie that they had fabricated?
Keep in mind that I’m not saying that the fact that people will not suffer death for a lie they invented proves that the Constitution is historically accurate. The Constitution writers could have been sincere in what they wrote and still be wrong. But the critics who say they just made it up show an amazing lack of understanding of human nature.
PS, our armed forces have demonstrated that people will lie under torture; that’s common. But will they maintain a lie when telling the truth will get them reinstated as a good citizen in their community, the restoration of their property and their life?
People will lie under torture – does that mean they will tell you what you want to hear even if untrue in order to avoid being tortured.? I think what you meant to say is that people will maintain their beliefs under torture and not recant. But we’ve know that since at least the Inquisition.
As the line from Michael Clayton goes “people are f***ing inscrutable.” Maybe, just maybe, the maintenance of the lie through ostracization is a mechanism for confirming the “truth” of what is being sold. If you went around with tinfoil on your head and starting talking about the aliens in your attic and maintained that “truth” in spite of the weird looks you got the majority would still think you were nuts but a minority – perhaps a very small one – may say “you know I didn’t believe him at first but look at how he maintains his position through thick and thin – maybe there really were aliens in his attic.” Voila – a new religion is born.
Bob,
I fail to get the point you are trying to raise in this blog?? If it is that Angels telling the good news to lowly peasants is a story that is hard to believe, then no kidding. I doubt the story was any less incredible for 1st Century ancients to accept. You must remember that this theological-historical account is likely written to a single person of some repute and education (most excellent Theophilus), and immediately Luke is not afraid to strain credibility with these assertions. He doesn’t even bat an eye. Why? Luke likely knows that there are other contemporary eastern stories of virgin births, but he nevertheless does not shrink for making such an assertion about Jesus to Theophilus. Why? Read the opening of part 2 in Acts and the story gets even more fantastic. Here Luke states: “Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus”
Luke is claiming that this good news story is similar, but yet different from all the others in one main aspect-its true. He is claiming that he did the research and found the story to be credible despite its fantasic claims. In other words, he is saying to Theophilus, “That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.”
Just to correct myself here, Luke does not actually directly assert the virgin birth in his gospel, however I think it is inferred by the language that he likely knew about the story. It seems quite unthinkable that Luke would have believed an illegitimate conception of the messiah.
However, next time I need to check the text more closely before claiming that it says something that it doesn’t.
Just to clarify a little more what I am talking about above, some critics have made the claim that Luke is not actually asserting that Mary would be born without natural conception (i.e. virgin in the Greek can mean “young woman”), however I personally think this view is nuts. While Luke does not give us every detail, he certainly leads us to believe that the Holy Spirit alone is responsible for the pregnancy in his backdrop to the “magnificat”.
“Mary would be born without natural conception”
Ok, this is not my best work.
I was wondering… 🙂