Do not preserve the Ashes

Christmas seems to have lost its anamnesis. The paraphernalia commemorating its memories are at sale but too expensive for the commons. Market has usurped the Manger. The biblical interpretations also legitimize these invasions. When did tangibility gain precedence over anamnesis? As we brace ourselves for Christmas I find a dire need to rekindle the fire of Re-Membrance which is at the verge of being extinguished by the ashes of misinterpretations.

By and large, traditions are held at fault. This is again due to our faulty construal of the term ‘tradition’. This reminiscence me the words of the famous composer Gustav Mahler; “Tradition is not to preserve the ashes but to pass on the flame.” Since time immemorial we have been preserving the ashes reluctant to feed the fire as we relish the numbness of cold and stagnancy. Our indolence is at the expense of the memory of Christ. We are the Disciples of Christ and therefore His sojourning History. Rajneesh Osho reckoned on his death bed, “Do not write my history as my disciples are my history.” Metropolitan Anthony Bloom who was a monk and the Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church also remarked beautifully, “We should try to live in such a way that if the gospels were lost, they could be rewritten by looking at us.”

Nevertheless provinciality is indispensable as far as writings are concerned and that may be the reason why the great teachers of this world like Socrates, Buddha and Jesus did not write a single word. Writings are besieged by discrepancies and I would attempt to untangle a few concerning the birth narrative of Jesus taking the Gospel of Luke as the frame of reference and Kenneth E. Bailey’s book “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” as my inspiration.

Luke 2: 1-18 narrates the birth of Jesus. This also gives rise to certain critical flaws. Some of them are:

1. How could Joseph, who was of the Royal Davidic lineage, be refused a shelter in the City of David (Bethlehem; Lk 2:4)?  

2. In any culture a pregnant woman is given due respect by the community members. Were the women of Bethlehem (City of David) so disrespectful that they showed the audacity to not help the wife of Joseph, King David’s descendent?

3. In spite of Joseph and Mary being in Judea (Lk 2: 4) why did not they seek the help of Mary’s relatives, viz. Elizabeth and Zechariah who were residing in Judea? Do you feel its lack of time? Then look down.

4. While reading vv 2 and 6 we come to know that the birth of Jesus was not in haste as reinforced by traditional Christian Pageants.

All these queries could be clarified if we find the answer of two pivotal questions:

1. Where was the manger?

2. What was the inn?

As pictures speak more than words I would like you to have a look at the two figures below that depict the view of a typical village home in Palestine.

The word manger has no sympathetic intonation as conceived by the modern minds. Mangers and Stables were part and parcel of a typical village home in Palestine during ancient years. 

Bailey opines:

“Luke’s mention of a ‘manger’ has led most Western readers to assume that Jesus was born in a stable, and that idea has become fixed in our Christmas traditions. Rather, an ordinary Palestinian village home was a one-room house in which animals were kept on a lower level with the mangers along the side of the family’s living area. The manger was therefore part of an ordinary living room, and there is no basis in Luke’s account for the sentimental idea that Jesus was born excluded from human society. Since Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral home, in all possibilities they were staying with relatives.” (32-33)

“No room in the inn” is the traditional language trap which we have fallen prey to. But the Greek word used here is ‘topos’ which means ‘space’. There was no space in the inn is an apt translation. Also it is imperative to note the Greek word for inn i.e. ‘katalyma’ which means ‘a place to stay’, in Luke’s choice, ‘a guest room’. 

“The Greek word traditionally translated ‘inn’ (katalyma) normally denotes a guest room in a private house (as in 22:11); Luke uses a different word for a commercial inn in 10:34 (pandocheion), and it is questionable whether Bethlehem was a large enough settlement to have an ‘inn’ as such. A slightly more affluent village home might have had an additional room for guests either alongside the main living room or built on a roof (cf. 2 Kings 4:10). Perhaps it was already occupied by other relatives who were in town for the census. So Jesus was born among the family in the living room. The circumstances were humble and perhaps inconvenient in contrast to an emperor’s palace, but the scene is one of warmth and acceptance in a family home and vestige of exclusion and shabbiness are not found.” (33-34)

This is corroborated by the non-questioning of the shepherds and wise men concerning the quality of hospitality enjoyed by the Saviour.

Bailey concludes by stating:

“Jesus was born in a simple two room village home such as the Middle East has known for at least three thousand years. Yes we must rewrite our Christmas plays but in rewriting them the story is enriched and not cheapened.” 

Christmas is indeed a historical event but we should not romanticize it paving the markets a fecund ground for exploitation. Check out below; 

To conclude, shall we blow away the ashes to rekindle the embers as Christ indeed is born and continues to live amongst us. That is the beauty of anamnesis. Christmas is the festival of paradox and oxymoron. It prepares us to expect the unexpected and accept the unaccepted. It is a festival that shatters the human constructed demarcations because with Christ any manger could be sanctified. 

Do celebrate Christmas as celebrations are nothing but the harvest of memories.