How Early Christians Understood (or Misunderstood) Slavery

One of the many reasons that I enjoy the study of Medieval history so much is because it is such a misunderstood and misrepresented era. There are so many misconceptions surrounding the Medieval period, caused primarily by Hollywood, Renaissance Festivals, etc. Uncovering the sometimes obscure facts about the Medieval era helps to shed those misconceptions and brings greater understanding.

One of those misconceptions has to do with the practice of slavery and how early Christians understood (or perhaps misunderstood) the practice. Contrary to popular belief, early Christianity did not repeal the practice or reduce the numbers of slaves involved. Rather, early Christians, in many ways, found convenient justifications that allowed the practice to continue and even flourish for many years.

To be certain, slavery did, over time, dwindle away in Medieval Europe thanks in large part to the Christian faith (though one could easily argue that peasantry, along with different forms of forced labor wasn't much better).  But as the final remnants of the Roman Empire decayed away, being replaced with Christian institutions to fill the void and establish new social and political constructs, the slavery question required an overhaul in how it would be reconciled to this new world faith. Naturally, an appeal to Christian authority (meaning Jesus' apostles) would satisfy such a void. The Didache (a first century collection of teaching attributed to the Twelve Apostles) states the following on slavery:

Do not, when embittered, give orders to your slave, male or female, for the hope in the same God; otherwise, they might lose fear of God, who is the Master of both of you. Surely is not coming to call with an eye to rank and station in life, no. But you, slaves, be submissive to your masters as to God's image in reverence and fear.

The message here is clear. Slaves, though technically eligible for salvation, are still an accepted component of society. Slave masters are to do their Christian duty by treating their slaves with relative respect, just as God treats them (his children who are still subjugated to him) with that same respect.

The Bible is full of examples of how early Christians were to interact and deal with their slaves. Paul alone provides us with ample source material on the subject. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul directs slaves to submit to their masters willfully. It is important to note that the word "servant" or "maid" in the King James Translation actually means "slave.":

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

From 1 Timothy 6: 1-3 we read:

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren, but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort, If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness.

For Paul, and many other Christians, slavery is simply a normal part of life. The job of the Christian is to play their part as best they can as Christians.  From 1 Corinthians 12:13:

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

And Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, that is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And Colossians 3:11:

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Slavery was part and parcel to daily life in the world of early Christians, and their leadership seemed content to embrace it as they would embrace any other aspect of their lives. In fact, Paul appears to support slave holding to a fault.  In his letter to Philemon, Paul mentions the fact that he has returned a runaway slave (Onesimus), whom he met while together in prison, to his master, presumably Philemon. Though he could have given the runaway Onesimus sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner (though he hints to Philemon that he would like to see Onesimus freed).  Had Paul seen slavery as a Christian abomination, this would have been the best time of all to take a stand.  He didn't because Paul, like his fellow Christians of the day, saw no sin in the keeping of slaves.

As the Apostles died away, the idea of slavery continued to be sanctioned by the subsequent generations of Christian leaders. Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John), for example, urged slaveholders to avoid emancipating their slaves, since (in his mind) slaves would naturally fall away from God:

Let them submit themselves the more, for the glory of God, that they may obtain from God a better liberty. Let them not wish to be set free as the public expense, that they be not found slaves to their own desires.

It is important that we understand the type of slavery that existed in this period. Contrary to the slavery of the New World (almost exclusively Black African slavery), the slavery of late antiquity/the early Medieval world was usually the result of debts, crimes committed or neighboring societies conquering and subjugating the losers. People who found themselves swimming in debts, for example, often found forgiveness for said debts by selling themselves, or more common, their family members into slavery.  In Matthew 18:25 we read:

But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

Slaves were even owned by High Priests and potentially even by apostles themselves.  From Mark 14:66:

And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest.

Over time (particularly after the "fall" of the Roman Empire), slavery became a less advantageous enterprise that was phased out. The institution of peasantry and other forms of impoverished living were more advantageous to Medieval society than slavery.

The Medieval Evolution of the Cross

The world that was Medieval Europe was, by and large, governed by the Catholic Church. Everything from a person's daily diet to the treatment of various diseases were influenced by how the church interpreted the will of God in relation to these seemingly mundane daily activities.  In short, the ritual that is life had to be put in harmony with the ritual that was devotion to Jesus the Christ.

And as the Medieval world evolved over the centuries, the understanding and implementation of these various Christian rituals evolved as well. Church and secular leaders, spread throughout the continent, worked tirelessly to enact laws, publish decrees, enforce standards of conduct, and, in short, do all that was deemed necessary to ensure that those under their charge were living a life of pious devotion.

And though these laws did much to help shape the character that was the typical Medieval peasant disciple, it only had a superficial effect.  Medieval peasantry, though certainly influenced by the laws and decrees of their respective lands, were still free to believe whatever they ultimately felt in their heart.  And since things like reading scripture and other holy writ were forbidden (not to mention the fact that most peasants were illiterate), Medieval peasants were forced to find spiritual stimulation in other ways.  Certainly the liturgy of the Mass was quite influential, as were the various feast days, saints, etc.  But since reading was out of the question, this meant that the VISUAL religious experience took precedent in shaping how Medieval peasants understood their faith.

In his article, "From Triumphant to Suffering Jesus: Visual and Literary Depictions of the Crucifixion, 300-1200" historian Michael Stewart explores how the depictions of Christ's crucifixion evolved over a millenia, ultimately culminating with the Renaissance. These crucifixion scenes started with dark, abstract depictions, but eventually evolved to reveal a very human Jesus of deep suffering and agony.  As a result, many of these later Renaissance crucifixion motifs contributed to the persecution of Jews throughout Europe in the twelfth century.

One does not need to be an expert in Medieval history or the history of art to see the obvious changes in crucifixion art that took place over the course of the 900 years that Michael Stewart discusses in his article.  Take, for example, a few basic images:

This image, for example, is from approximately 850 in Spain and reveals what Steward calls "the triumphant Christ."

According to Steward, the earliest depictions of Christ on the cross portrayed a living Jesus.  The early Medieval world actually abhorred depictions of a lifeless, suffering Christ on the cross, which they saw as meaningless.  Instead, early Medieval crucifixion scenes were often like the one above.

In addition, Stewart provides an additional reason for why these early Christians avoided creating death scenes for Christ when he writes: 

The Roman Empire had long admired martial virtues as the primary components of an ideal Roman male's identity, which helps explain the lack of interest in Christ's suffering for a religion that was focusing on converting a population that venerated the deeds of military men.

As a result, it is far more common for us to find the following depictions of Christ from early Medieval Christians:

Mosaic of Christ as Roman Emperor, found in Ravenna, Italy. 

This image of Christ reveals a triumphant, heroic savior of mankind, dressed in traditional Roman clothing, which was precisely the image that early Christians wanted to revere.

For many early Christians, the manner in which Christ died was seen as "unmanly" and certainly not worthy of a great leader (crucifixion was seen as a humiliating way to kill enemies of the State). Is it any surprise that these early Christians would either avoid the crucifixion scene entirely or depict in in a non-degrading manner?

But as Western Europe continued to evolve, the manner in which Christ was depicted evolved as well.  During the 9th and 10th centuries, Western European Christianity became far less individualistic.  As Stewart points out, "One no longer made a deliberate choice to become a Christian." Christianity was, for the most part, now a requirement.  In addition, an increase in the emphasis on Old Testament teachings (Medieval peasants were finding less in common with the now "ancient" Roman world but greater interest in the idea of ancient Israel) brought with it an increased desire to see Christ as the typical "Christian soldier" of the Crusades.  For example:

 This fresco, found in the "Visoci Decani" in modern day Kosovo, came with the accompanying verse from Matt. 10:34 which states, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

Again, a triumphant, quasi-militant Christ was the desired imagery for a people who were more than familiar with violence in the name of religion.

With the dawn of the Reformation and Renaissance, however, the Medieval world experienced a shift in how Christ was portrayed.  As Stewart states:

By the 10th century, we begin to see the first examples of a new type of crucifix which emphasized Christ's anguish. The movement gained momentum in the eleventh and twelfth centuries...This period of consolidation and change, created the need for reformers to protect themselves against both clerical and lay opponents.  Jesus presented a focal point around which the reformers could rely, in doing, the reformers emphasized Christ's humanity, which increasingly became an object of devotion and imitation.

The poignant example of Christ being preferred for his humanity and suffering can be found in the poem by Hildegard of Bingen, a twelfth-century nun and writer, who wrote:

Now, we call on you, our husband and comforter,
Who redeemed us on the cross.
We are bound to you through your blood,
as the pledge of betrothal.
We have renounced early men,
And chosen you the Son of God.
O most beautiful form.
O sweetest fragrance of desirable delights.
We sigh for you always in our sorrowful banishment!
When may we see you and remain with you?
But we dwell in the world,
And you dwell in our mind.
We embrace you in our heart as if you were here with us.

The imagery created in this poem is not of a warrior Christ or an impersonal emperor of both heaven and earth, but rather of a personal, even intimate Jesus who suffered with his people.  Is it any wonder why the crucifixion art of this time would take on a human, intimate and suffering tone:

   

The suffering Christ, surrounded by devastated loved ones, reflect the changes that were flooding into Western Europe.  The Renaissance and Reformation brought with them a greater emphasis on individuality, humanity, and promoted the personal, intimate Christ over the warrior Christ.  There can be little doubt that such depictions of the centerpiece of Christianity had a very real and very profound impact on Medieval peasants, who were, for the first time, beginning to see themselves in a very different light.

The Typical Medieval Diet (It's Not What You Probably Thought)

It was a cold and quiet morning here in Colorado Springs.  We're expecting the year's first major snow storm.  It's the kind of weather that forces you to stay inside, hunker down and either watch a movie or read.  And since there was nothing good on television this morning, I elected to finally read a few journal articles that I've had on the back shelf for quite some time.

This morning I read an article by Medieval historian Ramon Agustin Lopez entitled, "Consumption of Meat in Western European Cities During the Late Middle Ages." On the surface, this article probably seems cut-and-dry. After all, everyone knows (even those who've never studied Medieval history) that the typical peasant diet was lacking when it came to the basic nutritional needs required for the human body. This conclusion, however, is not as correct as we may think.  In his article, Dr. Lopez contends that while the typical Medieval diet was certainly not as healthy as it could have been, the culturally accepted notion that peasants starved or had little to eat is not as true as we may think.

To be certain, the Medieval world did not fully understand how the human body processed food, nor did they recognize which foods contained the beneficial proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, etc. that humans need. This nutritional deficiency, however, was not the result of a lack of food but rather a lack of maintaining a balanced diet.  As Dr. Lopez points out, over 80% of Medieval peasants enjoyed "more than sufficient portions of protein" in their daily meals. The primary source of this protein came from mutton, which was generally seen as the meat of the lower classes.  Nobility and other elites of society usually consumed beef (in rather large quantities), while the peasantry consumed the flesh of sheep.

In addition, Medieval peasantry consumed a large portion of beans, peas, eggs and lentils, which also augmented their protein intake.  In fact, the typical English peasant could expect to enjoy a rather bountiful table.  The average daily meal for such a person usually consisted of 2-3 pounds of bread, 8-14 ounces of protein (usually from mutton, eggs, or beans and fish in the coastal regions), and 3-6 pints of ale. Vegetables and fruits were a seasonal and regional product.

Of course, none of this takes into account the occasions in which famine, disease or climate effected the abundance of food.  To be certain, the Medieval world faced such difficulties on a reoccurring basis.  But when times were good (or at least "normal"), the typical Medieval family was not as deprived of nourishment as we may think.

The problems that resulted from the typical Medieval diet were usually related to contamination and a lack of nutritional diversity.  Most peasants stuck with a few basic foods for reasons of convenience.  Life was busy and tough enough without having to worry about providing a variety of options on the dinner table.  In addition, the problem of contamination was always present.  As I stated in a previous blog post, most bread (especially the bread of the peasantry) was made from rye, which was often contaminated with Ergot.  And while preservation practices were rather sophisticated and successful (especially in the late Middle Ages), the threat of contaminated water, meat, etc. was always looming.  Dysentery, food poisoning and other ailments were always a reality.

Aside from the practical realities that governed the Medieval diet, a number of cultural customs regarding food were also of great importance.  As was common during this time, the Catholic Church enjoyed a great deal of influence over many aspects of Medieval life, and meal time was no exception.  The liturgical calender was littered with a plethora of feast and fast days, each of which dictated what could or could not be consumed.  In most areas, meat was forbidden for approximately 1/4 of the calender year, while all animal products (to include eggs, dairy, meat, etc.) were prohibited during Lent (fish being the only exception).

Dr. Lopez's article goes on to discuss how Medieval meal practices and customs eventually influenced many of the modern world's dinner and holiday practices.  The idea of eating together as a family at a communal table has its roots in Medieval times.

What I find equally fascinating (but is not mentioned in Dr. Lopez's article) is how European culinary practices changed with the discovery of the "New World."  The introduction of corn, potatoes, sugar, tobacco, etc. completely revolutionized the European dining experience.  We cannot underestimate the importance of this reality.  In fact, Europe witnessed a dramatic spike in procreation at the dawn of the discovery of the New World.  Added calories and a diversity of food options certainly contributed to this growth in population.

Diseases of the Middle Ages

Anyone with even an elementary understanding of the history of the Middle Ages is aware of the fact that disease and sickness was a reality that literally infected the whole of society.  Try as they did, the people of the Middle Ages were ill equipped to combat the various illnesses that perplexed even the brightest of Medieval physicians (if you can even call them that).

We all recognize the fact that Medieval Europe lacked even a basic understanding of many important health and wellness practices.  Simple concepts like hygiene (i.e. washing your hands with soap and water) were only understood by a select few, and even in such cases their understanding would be considered woefully inadequate by today's standards.  These deficiencies were, in most cases, the result of honest ignorance.  How could Medieval society be expected to understand how microorganisms like bacteria and viruses infected the body?

Despite their obvious disadvantage, Medieval practitioners of medicine did their best to diagnose and treat the various mystery illnesses that came their way.  And though we may find their methodology for treating the sick to be barbaric or downright strange, it is important to recognize how Medieval medicine set the tone for future generations.  The following are some of the more bizarre (or "unique") illnesses/diagnoses that many Medieval patients experienced:

1.) "St. Anthony's Fire": At the end of the 10th century, many citizens of the Medieval world (particularly in France and Spain) fell sick to "St. Anthony's Fire," which was an illness that primarily resulted in painful sores that grew on the legs and groin.  It was believed that the only cure was to seek aid from a monastery or church where the blessings of God (along with whatever home remedy that particular church employed) would cure the patient.  In reality, St. Anthony's Fire was Ergot poisoning.  Ergot is a fungus that grows on rye, particularly in wet and cold conditions.  If the rye is not cleaned before it is ground up to make grain, the fungus infects the body, resulting in painful sores on the body.  The reason Medieval patients experienced relief when traveling to churches may be due to the fact that they were no longer eating the infected rye from home.

2.) "The King's Evil":  was a disease in which the patient experienced severe chest pain, along with black masses on their neck and chest area.  It was believed that the disease was the result of either witchcraft or poor blood circulation in the body.  Medieval doctors believed that it was the liver that was responsible for blood circulation, while the heart circulated "vital spirit" (the blood of the soul?).  And since the liver is black, it was believed that the black sores on the neck and chest were evidence of a sick liver. Treatment for this disease was, interestingly enough, for the patient to receive the touch of royalty.  But since a king/queen couldn't be expected to touch every sick peasant, royal leaders elected to touch special coins that had been blessed by the hand of the crown.  The sick would then place the coins on their neck and chest, which would supposedly cure the patient in a matter of hours.

Reality is that "The King's Evil" was a rare form of tuberculosis called scrofula, which infects the lymph notes of the human neck resulting in black masses.  Mortality for this disease was estimated in some countries at 40%.

3.) "The Ague": was a disease common in the low-lying areas of Europe and eastern England. The disease resulted in fever, chills, profuse sweating and severe headaches.  "The Ague" was believed to be the result of "bad air" and an imbalance of the "four humors" of the body (i.e. blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile).  Treatment included everything from bloodletting (cutting and bleeding the patient) to an assortment of strange herbs and potions.

Truth of the matter is "The Ague" was nothing more than malaria carried by the mosquito. Obviously the Medieval world was not aware of how insects could transmit disease to humans.

4.) "The Bloody Flux": was another illness believed to be the result of imbalance of the four humors.  Interestingly enough, it was also believed that the "Bloody Flux" was a possible punishment from God for adultery and other sexual impropriety.  "The Bloody Flux" resulted in diarrhea, dehydration, bloody stools, and stomach cramps.  In reality, "The Bloody Flux" was nothing more than Dysentery, which was caused by contaminated food and poor hygiene.

5.) "Water Elf Disease": was an illness that resulted in painful red sores on the body, watery eyes, itchy skin and severe fatigue.  It was believed that "Water Elf Disease" was the result of witchcraft, particularly a witch's spell.  Treatment for the disease was usually a combination of various herbs and other local potions.  In addition, it was believed that chanting certain songs could remove the curse of the witch who had made the patient sick.  The most common song went something like this:

I have bound on the wounds the best of war bandages, so the wounds neither burn nor burst, nor go further, nor spread, nor jump, nor the wounds increase, nor sores deepen.  By may he himself keep in a healthy way.  May it not ache you more than it aches earth in ear.  May earth bear on you with all her might and main.

Medical practitioners today, along with most kindergarten children, know this illness quite well. Today we call it chickenpox or the measles.

And though we may laugh at the silly names, remedies and alleged causes that the Medieval world gave to these (and many other) medical conditions, remember that this was no game for those who lived it.  In their minds, witches were real, spells had actual power, the divine touch of a king could heal, and sometimes God was simply manifesting his wrath.  The Medieval world was no pick nick.
Maybe all the Renaissance Festival nerds and wannabe knights who pretend to be great Medieval warriors would do well to remember this.  The next time you get sick, just bleed yourself, have your buddy give you a spell, or ingest some strange potion.  Don't dare go to a hospital!

The Medieval Origins of Capitalism

I've never been a huge fan of economics.  In my opinion, the difference between most economic theories and practices is predominantly one of semantics.  In the end, all systems of exchange can be reduced to their common denominator: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. No one system is really all that preferable to another (in my opinion). With that said, studying the history and evolution of economics does help to shed light on the changes and advances that have been made in society, and the efforts to even the playing field for all of humanity.

And when it comes to the study of economics, no system is more important to the modern Western world than capitalism.  For many Americans, capitalism is every bit as important of a component to the founding of their nation as is the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (even though the Founding Fathers never really put capitalism on their radar).  And though there is much to say for the more modern conceptualizations of capitalism (i.e. Adam Smith, Max Weber, etc.) the original origins of capitalism hail back to a time before the "New World" had even been discovered.  

The world that was 14th century Europe was a world in constant flux.  Severe political, religious, social, economic and health problems plagued (literally) the landscape.  These mitigating factors brought with them sweeping tides of change that helped to redefine European society.  For instance, the Black Death, along with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, had ravaged the countryside, claiming at least 1/3 of the populace in the process.  The massive loss of laborers caused a dramatic change to the Manorial and Feudal systems in almost all of Europe.  This lack of laborers created new opportunities for the peasantry to move about and benefit from additional markets.  In addition, the development of newer agricultural technologies revitalized the markets of a suffering Europe.  Eventually, the emergence of Calvinist doctrines, particularly regarding worldly success as a symbol of God's favor, encouraged further growth, all of which gave rise to the earliest embryonic form of capitalism known as Mercantilism.   Needless to say, these advances fit nicely with the discovery of the "New World" in the following century, and eventually evolved to become a staple in the Western world. 

Of course, I am not suggesting that our modern understanding of capitalism existed in the Middle Ages.  Far from it.  But it is fair to say that an infant form of the system was beginning to emerge during the middle part of the 14th century.  Improvements in naval travel helped to augment the trade markets to and from Europe, and increased the demand for goods.  As a result, an emerging class of specialized laborers found themselves having access to a measure of wealth that had never before existed under feudalism.   Skeptics will, of course, point out that improvements in trade and the emergence of new markets don't necessarily equate to capitalism and they are right.  But there is a large body of evidence for commercial activity in the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Mediterranean, which deserves to be recognized for its enterprise and sophistication.  Mediterranean, and particularly Italian, merchants traded in high-value luxury goods, like spices, gems, dyes, and exotic metalwork. And although goods like these had circulated the seas for centuries, the volume and value of this trade increased dramatically in the wake of the struggles of the 14th century.  And it is very unlikely that such an expansion would have occurred under the old systems of manorialism and feudalism, which insisted on being self-reliant and relatively localized in scope.  Therefore, the expansion that took place in the 14th century should be seen as the result of the many social and economic changes that had taken place.

As you can see in the map above, European and Middle Eastern traders were active across a wide swathe of the Mediterranean world. To this end, the major Italian cities established trading colonies, to protect their interests abroad and monopolize the sources of desirable goods. These cities included, Amalfi, Naples, Genoa, and of course, Venice. The merchant-imperialism of these cities went hand in hand with the complex ways of investing and launching trading missions organised by the merchants themselves.  In addition, it was this expansive trade system that eventually allowed Arabian literature, architecture, mathematics, etc. to make their way into the European heartland, thus helping to ignite the Renaissance.  It's not a stretch to suggest that without these advances, Europe may never have had its De Vinci.

 In conclusion, what we can glean from the history and origins of capitalism (or any other economic system for that matter) is that it didn't come into existence overnight.  It took a great deal of time to evolve into what we have today, and frankly, it's still evolving.  Economic systems are static, unchangeable concepts, but rather are fluid and ever-changing.  This is certainly the case with capitalism.  From its birth in the Middle Ages to its existence today as the predominant means of exchange in the Western World today, capitalism has had a long and interesting history.  Will it last?  I have no idea.  As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't believe there is all that much difference between rival economic systems to begin with, but then again, I never lived in Feudal Europe.  

Jeanne d'Arc: Hero or Heretic?

Yesterday marked the 600th anniversary of the birth of Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc), the infamous French peasant girl who defied the English. Joan of Arc's life story is fascinating to say the least. As a poor daughter of a peasant family in eastern France, Jeanne's life should have come and gone without so much as a footnote in the history books. So how did such a young, poor and obscure female of the 15th century become such a powerful and influential hero?

It is difficult to say. If we asked Jeanne herself, the answer would no doubt be "because it was the will of God." After all, Jeanne claimed that her "calling" came as a result of several heavenly manifestations throughout her childhood (beginning at age 12). She remained steadfast in that assertion throughout the remainder of her short life, even in the face of execution. As she stated during her interrogation and trial:

I know well that that which is contained in my case has come to me by the Commandment of God; what I affirm in the case is, that I have acted by the order of God: it is impossible for me to say otherwise. In case the Church should prescribe the contrary, I should not refer to any one in the world, but to God alone, Whose Commandment I always follow.

This is a remarkable declaration considering the fact that Jeanne d'Arc was all of nineteen years of age. To be a 15th century female of humble roots and to stand defiant against one's accusers was almost unheard of. And though inspiring to say the least, this was the least of Jeanne d'Arc's accomplishments

With the sporadic conflicts that came as a result of the Hundred Years' War, France was thrown into crisis mode, as rival French lords and invading English Kings jockeyed for control of the French crown. These conflicts left the French countryside nearly destitute, as English forces employed Chevauchée tactics that ravaged poor villages. One of these villages was a small northeastern community called Domrémy, which just happened to be home to a young married couple named Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée. The couple owned about 50 acres of farmland, placing them on the higher end of the French peasantry. The family was fairly well off, as Jacques was able to supplement his farming income as a tax collector of sorts. In addition, Jacques' post also included making provisions for the villages defense. Perhaps this is where his famous daughter gained her knowledge of warfare?

Regardless of where or how Jeanne d'Arc gained her military prowess one fact is undeniable: this young peasant girl was a genius. The sheer fact that she was able to gain a command with a group of male French soldiers is astounding by itself, but when we also factor in her generalship on the battle field, Jeanne's brilliance comes to life. Not only did Jeanne successfully predict a the outcomes to key battles but she was also able to effectively lead a number of successful military campaigns. As historian Stephen Richey states: "She proceeded to lead the army in an astounding series of victories that reversed the tide of the war."

Whether Jeanne was an actual battle commander in war, a standard bearer that inspired the army, or a combination of the two has been debated by historians for centuries. There is no doubt that Jeanne participated in a number of war councils with other military commanders, who resented her age, gender (which she tried to hide) and her lack of nobility. Nevertheless, virtually everyone recognized Jeanne's astounding talent, foresight, and apparent divine sanctioning. To many of her French colleagues, Jeanne was a prophetess of sorts, who had a direct line of contact to God himself. And in the wake of defeat after defeat at the hands of the English, anyone, even a young peasant girl claiming divine revelation, was a welcomed change. Her presence brought with it a change in the war. As Jeanne d'Arc herself stated:

Of the love or hatred God has for the English, I know nothing, but I do know that they will all be thrown out of France, except those who die there.

But not everyone was as quick to revere Jeanne d'Arc's supposed clairvoyance. The English, who had been on the receiving end of Jeanne's military brilliance/inspiration, denounced her as a heretic. After her capture and eventual "sale" to the English, Jeanne d'Arc was put on trial in what became a corrupt show court. Inquisitors tried to pin the French peasant down on a number of theological issues, but were cleverly rebuffed by Jeanne's keen intellect. In one of the more popular exchanges, Jeanne was asked if "she knew she was in God's grace", to which she answered "If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me." The question was meant as a trap for Jeanne. Church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace. If she had answered yes, then she would have convicted herself of heresy. If she had answered no, then she would have confessed her own guilt (her answer was similar in tone to the one given by Jesus Christ to the Pharisees in Matthew, chapter 21:25).

Jeanne's response left inquisitors dumbfounded and forced them to convict her of heresy on bogus charges relating to her dressing as a man. Some scholars have suggested that Jeanne's apparent habit of dressing in men's clothing may have been the result of transgender issues. This is unlikely, however, due to the fact that Jeanne did so only to infiltrate enemy lines and to keep herself safe while in the army. In addition, her choice to dress in men's clothing while imprisoned was likely for protection. Instead of being placed under the care of nuns (which was customary for female prisoners), Jeanne was placed in a prison guarded by English male soldiers. Needless to say, these soldiers took advantage of the female guest who was at their mercy. Dressing in men's clothing of the time afforded Jeanne more protection from rape. As historian Robert Wirth explains:

[W]itnesses related that Joan of Arc had told them that she had worn, and had resumed, this clothing and kept the hosen and doublet "firmly fastened and tied together" because this provided her with the only means she had of protecting herself against the incidences of attempted rape which her English guards were inflicting on her. This description will be immediately understandable if one is familiar with this type of clothing. Based on a description in the Condemnation transcript itself as well as period illustrations of the general type of garment in question, her outfit was equipped with two layers of hosen securely fastened to the doublet, the inner layer being waist-high conjoined woolen hosen attached to the doublet by fully twenty cords, each cord tied into three eyelets apiece (two on the hosen and one on the doublet), for a total of forty attachment points on the inner layer of hosen. The second layer, which was made of rugged leather, seems to have been attached by yet another set of cords. Once this outfit was thus fastened together by dozens of cords connecting both layers to the doublet, it would be a substantial undertaking for someone to try to pull off these garments, especially if she was struggling.

Regardless of the practicality of wearing men's clothing for a woman in Jeanne's position, English inquisitors found her guilty of heresy. And even though she was technically justified by law to dress as a man for her protection and to preserve her chastity, Jeanne was burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. Her last words were (allegedly) "I am not afraid. I was born to do this" (again, an incredible declaration from a nineteen-year-old peasant girl).

It is probably a foregone conclusion that much of Jeanne d'Arc's legacy as a hero of France rests with the fact that France was able to defeat the English and reclaim the lands they had lost. Had England emerged victorious, it is likely that Jeanne's legacy would be quite different; a heretic rather than a hero prophetess. And we can't ignore the fact that the multiple conflicts we now call the Hundred Years' War lead to the development of early French and English nationalism, thus exalting Jeanne d'Arc to the status of a national symbol. But regardless of these facts, the remarkable life of Jeanne d'Arc is an astonishing example of unshakable faith, remarkable bravery and undaunted determination. Her life story makes even the most skeptical person wonder if maybe she really did have a divine call from heaven. Whether or not such is the case, Jeanne d'Arc remains one of the most fascinating figures in all of human history.

Occupy Wall Street and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381

"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

This rhetorical rhyme, made famous by the English Medieval Lollard Preacher John Ball, illustrates what many throughout the course of human history have believed: the rich get richer while doing less while the poor get poorer while doing more. Whether this is true or not is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, the fact remains that history is replete with examples of those who have challenged the social and economic divisions of their time in an effort to balance the scales of justice.

Of course, the obvious example for us today is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is presumably operating under the assumption that the current economic state of affairs in the United States are unacceptable. Whether the "99%" has a legitimate argument or not has become a hot topic in today's political discourse and is likely to be an issue in the upcoming 2012 Presidential election. Do the "99%" have a case to be made? Who knows. Again, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I am not a fan of either the Occupy movement or the Tea Party movement (for personal reasons) but the fact remains that protests over alleged economic inequality is a big deal to a lot of people

And America is far from unique when it comes to protest. As stated before, humans have long argued over issues of economic inequality and perhaps one of the best examples of this phenomenon is a surefire Hollywood script in the making: the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

To understand the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 we need to place it within the context of its time. In 1350, England (and most of Europe as a whole) was finally beginning to emerge from the devastation left behind in the wake of the Black Death, which had claimed the lives of at least 1/3 of the continent. In addition, the Black Death created serious and severe economic problems for almost all survivors. Church resources were severely drained as were the pockets of the noble classes. With the labor force dramatically reduced, peasants were able to (in some cases for the first time ever) demand higher wages and better working conditions from the ruling class. Nobles, who before the Black Death were able to exploit the working masses, were forced to temporarily acquiesce to the demands of the peasantry.

This temporary (and relatively small) empowerment of the peasantry was not destined to last. Urged by the complaints of the nobles, King Edward III (and later his successor, Richard II) increased poll (census) taxes while at the same time passing laws that restricted peasant demands and fixed wages to pre-Black Death levels. In addition, nobles who belonged to large groups like the Knights Hospitilar, which controlled vast amounts of wealth and capital, were given tax breaks by the king, who depended on these nobles for his support.

Of course, this blatant show of favoritism for these elite, noble "corporations" did not sit well with the peasantry. In consequence, men like John Ball, Wat Tyler and Jack Straw emerged from the working ranks to inspire resistance against the ruling elite. These men, and thousands of others like them, staged public protests throughout England. No doubt inspired by the works of early Lollards like John Wycliffe, and having felt the horrific pressures of the Black Death, these peasants stood defiant to a ruling class that they believed no longer cared about their needs. This Medieval "99%" (a far more oppressed 99% than that of today) would eventually storm different locations that represented oppression in their eyes. For example, on June 14, 1381 a mob of nearly 20,000 stormed the Tower of London and executed Simon Sudbury (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and Robert de Hales (the Grand Prior of the Knights Hospitilar). These men, who were essentially the Medieval equivalent of corporate CEO's, had been some of the most vocal supporters of increased poll taxes and peasant restrictions. Needless to say, this "Occupy London Bridge" movement was meant to send a clear message. These sentiments would later be captured by Medieval Writer John Gower, who in his work Vox Clamantis, called the protesters "heathens", "angels of anti-Christ...who according to foolish ideas...believe in a world with no Lords." In his work Geoffrey Chaucer in his Nun's Priest's Tale, Geoffrey Chaucer immortalized one of the peasant leaders (Jack Straw) when he wrote:

Certes, he Jakke Straw and his meinee
Ne made nevere shoutes half so shrille,
Whan that they wolden any Fleming kille.

And though the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 ended with the murder of its leaders and the suppression of the masses (King Richard II actually lured men like Jack Straw and others into meeting with him in London only to have them executed), most agree that the revolt marks the beginning of the end for Medieval serfdom. Though it would take centuries, the upper class nobles were made to understand that they could not treat commoners as chattel. Slowly but surely a sweeping wave of change (in the shape of the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution and further economic opportunity brought on by Mercantilism) overcame Europe. Medieval kings and lords no longer maintained their monopoly on the "99%."

Is the same likely to happen today? Who knows. Only time will tell. Certainly today's economic oppression is not the same as that of our Medieval ancestors. Perhaps John Ball's poetic lines are as meaningful today as they were more than 600 years ago:

"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

Magnifying Magna Carta

The "Great Charter"
in Historical Context and the
Right to Rebel Against Tyrants
Do you remember 9th grade U.S. History? If so, chances are you recall hearing about the Magna Carta of 1215 and how it supposedly set the stage for the legal protection of individual liberties and helped to inspire other documents including the United States Constitution. You probably recall hearing your teacher relate to you the tales of the oppressive and vindictive King John, who, along with fighting his supposed nemesis Robin Hood (another myth for another day) had established a quasi-tyrannical reign over his English subjects. Long story short, the English people became fed up with John and the lack of protected individual liberties and demanded that a charter be created in which the king would recognize certain basic rights to be protected by law. Thus, the Magna Carta was born.

On the surface, this sounds like an inspiring, even patriotic tale, right? It's not hard to see how such a take on history has caught on, especially here in the "land of the free", where the descendants of Christian English settlers (with the obvious exception of the African slaves, Native Americans, and a countless host of other immigrants ) proudly carried the ideas of the Magna Carta to the "New World" and augmented it with a charter of their own: the U.S. Constitution, a.k.a. Magna Carta 2.0.

But alas, as is often the case, pop culture's take on history is usually more the stuff of Robin Hood and invisible Masonic treasure maps on the back of founding documents that it becomes more desirable than the actual truth. It is for this reason that the Magna Carta has become saturated with tales of what we want it to be rather than what it actually was. The truth: Magna Carta did not protect much of anything and was in fact rejected by King John, the Pope and most Englishmen. It was never a binding legal document, nor did it serve to protect indivudual liberties. Despite this fact, Magna Carta did serve one important function: it helped to justify the rebellion to tyranny.

It is true that Magna Carta is one of many important links in the chain that eventually became constitutional law in the Western world. However, it would be a major mistake to make the claim that Magna Carta was the starting point or even the most important component to eventual constitutional rule. For example, the English Charter of Liberties (1100) which preceded Magna Carta by almost 100 years, made some of the same claims, as did many other charters of Medieval Europe.

What is important to remember here, and is often difficult for us in the present day who have lived with guaranteed legal rights to understand, is that these charters were not legislation, but rather a promise from the King that was neither binding in any legal sense nor a requirement of his position. In the Medieval world kings ruled by Divine Right, meaning that God himself had granted them almost complete authority. Individual liberties were nice and certainly people were to be treated with some level of respect, but ultimate authority rested with the king. Defiance to his rule was defiance to God himself. As the Apostle Paul states in Romans chapter 13:

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Obviously this was a convenient justification for nobility to assert their rights to Divine Right kingship. Clothing authority in the robes of the will of God made resistance to leadership not only illegal but sinful. One could find himself in the dungeons of both earth and hell for defying a king.

With that said, the concept of ultimate authority resting with the king did not mean that rebellion was a thing of the past. Quite the contrary. For example, every English king since William the Conqueror was forced to deal with the threat of rebellion by powerful barons who questioned the king's right to lead. However, these rebellions were usually supported by another noble who laid the same claim to Divine Right authority as the King, thus the nobles were able to justify their actions. One could not be found blameless before God for supporting who he thought to be God's chosen man. During the reign of King John, however, there were no nobles present who could lay claim to the throne of England.

But why did these barons want to rebel at all? What was King John doing that was so terribly offensive? To understand these questions we must first understand the fundamental system of social organization in Medieval Europe: feudalism. In the simplest of terms, feudalism was a system in which land and goods were distributed at the will of the king. The fundamental belief was that the king was the rightful owner of all the land, but he allowed powerful nobles and barons to keep and cultivate certain portions of it. In turn, these barons allowed peasants to till portions of that land and keep a small amount of what they produced for themselves. In essence, it was a quasi-"trickle down" system where the higher your social status, the more the king let you have.

During the reign of King John, England was in an impoverished state. Recent wars with Phillip of France had exhausted the king's coffers and forced him to increase taxation upon the barons of the land, who, in turn, increased taxes on the peasants. As a result, the nobles of England became overrun with taxation to such a level that rebellion became a viable option. The lack of a legitimate royal replacement for John complicated issues, which is why the nobles decided on a charter stating their rights. However, this charter, according to historian Austin Lane Pool, was "mere subterfuge since what they really wanted was to replace the king with their chosen man."

Faced with mounting pressure, King John acquiesced to the desires of the nobles, but did so only as a political move. In reality he had no desire to honor the charter and in fact had already laid the groundwork for its demise. As historian David Carpenter points out:

John sealed Magna Carta at Runnymede on 15 June, 1215 with little intention of keeping to it...sometime in July John asked the pope to annul the charter. When the papal letter arrived in England at the end of September, the country was already at war. The rebels realized that John could never be restrained by Magna Carta. The only solution was his replacement...And with the pope's official rejection of Magna Carta the rebels had little faith in their newfound charter.

The fact that John rejected Magna Carta may be surprising to some but again, we must remember that it was not a legal document. As God's chosen leader on earth, John was not bound to follow any document issued by man. The Pope's agreement in this matter helped to support that very fact. For the barons to even issue such a document was, in the minds of John's supporters, blasphemy to God. As a result, civil war erupted as the nobles chose to not only reject their king but also defy God's biblical admonition to, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." In what became known as the First Barons' War, Lord Robert Fitzwalter (who many have associated with the Robin Hood legends) took the reigns of leadership and directed his fellow barons to established a codified set of "guidelines" for the king to follow. In what became known as The Articles of the Barons, Fitzwalter and his fellow barons provided a list of basic rights (an early bill of rights of sorts) which, in their minds, limited the scope of the king's authority and guaranteed certain basic individual rights. Here are a couple examples:

Article six
The king shall not grant any baron the right to take an aid from his free men, except for ransoming his person, for making his eldest son a knight and for once marrying his eldest daughter, and this he shall do by a reasonable aid.

Article twenty-one
That neither the king nor his bailiff shall take another man's timber for castles or other works of his, except with the agreement of him whose timber it is.

Article thirty nine
No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled or victimised in any other way, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

In a very real sense, what Fitzwalter and his fellow barons did became a precursor for Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, which argued that the law was superior to the authority of a king. These ideas, and many others, eventually became a part of Magna Carta:

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

And though Magna Carta was only intended to protect the rights of the noble baron class (peasants did not receive or expect anything from Magna Carta) it did help to foreshadow the course that later charters would eventually take. Magna Carta, which stood on the shoulders of many other important charters, became a foundation for other documents to build upon. And while Magna Carta was rejected by King John, the Pope and a large number of the nobility, it did endure as an example of humanity's quest for equality, even in the face of secular and religious rebuking of such actions. In short, Magna Carta stands as one of many banners to society's endless quest for liberty.

The Nativity Story: Why do We Get it so Very Wrong?

For today's Christmas installment on the history of Christmas, we take a look at the historical validity/invalidity of one of the most treasured symbols of the Christmas season: the Nativity. As we all know from our Sunday School lessons, Mary and Joseph made their way to Bethlehem, which was completely overcrowded due to Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be taxed." Upon their arrival, Joseph was unable to find shelter for his wife and soon-to-be infant son. As a result, Mary gave birth to Jesus in a stable. Soon thereafter, three wise men came from the east bearing gifts, as did a number of shepherds and other onlookers.

Seems straight forward enough, right?

Not quite. Oh, how often popular culture loves to distort historical fact!

And while popular culture is often more appealing to our emotional side, I maintain that historical integrity, no matter how different it is from our preconceived notions, is and always will be superior. So, with this in mind, let's dissect the Nativity story shall we!

To begin our quest for a better understanding of the Nativity we must first understand the historical records available to us, along with their context and significance. As can be expected, the majority of the material surrounding the birth of Jesus comes from the Bible, but you might be surprised to know that it only comes from the books of Matthew and Luke. Mark and John, for whatever reason, are completely silent on the birth of Christ. In addition, it is also important for us to recognize that the records surrounding the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are actually quite contradictory. The only general consensus we can glean from the two is that Mary gave birth to an infant son in Bethlehem, and that his birth was hailed as a miracle by those who witnessed it. We will discuss these differences between Mark and John further in a moment.

In addition, it is important for us to understand when and why the documents surrounding the birth of Jesus were written. For example, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which contain the biblical stories of Jesus' birth, were actually written many years after the actual birth of Christ. Matthew for example, was written somewhere between the years 70-100 A.D., while Luke's date (which is debated by scholars) is most likely between 37-70 A.D. This is important to consider because we must keep in the back of our minds that these records were written many years after the fact, and relied heavily upon heresay and second hand accounts. In addition, virtually all of the early writings by the earliest Christians (including the stuff not added to the Bible) centered specifically on Christs teachings, death and resurrection. Little to no emphasis was placed on his birth. Simply put, it wasn't a priority for the earliest Christian writers.

The Birthday of Jesus
Now, with the actual documents in hand, we must attempt to reckon the traditional Nativity story with historical fact. The first point to consider: the year of Christ's birth. As tradition and the early church tells us, Jesus was born in the year 1 A.D. This date, however, is a complete and total historical impossibility. For example, the gospels tell us that Jesus was born in the days of Herod. History proves that Herod died in the year 4 B.C., which would make any birth of Jesus after that date a historical farce. In addition, Luke makes mention of Cyrenius, who was "governor of Syria" according to Luke (see Luke 2:2). Cyrenius was actually not the governor per se, but had been sent to Palestine by order of Augustus to oversee the Roman census of 8-7 B.C. Thus, Luke would have naturally seen Cyrenius as the head honcho of sorts, since he was essentially acting as the governor at that time.

Another additional detail that helps us know the date of Jesus' birth is the Roman Census. In Luke, it states that a decree went up that "all the world should be taxed." This is actually not 100% accurate. It was a decree for a census, not a tax. Roman taxes were never collected in this fashion. All of the historical data indicates that this was a census. And when was that census? Augustus issued two different census counts (in 8 and 4 B.C.) As mentioned above, the most likely census that Joseph and Mary attended would have been 4 B.C.

And one final piece to the puzzle. The "star" in the heavens, which guided the Magi (wise men) to the location of Christ's birth. Modern astrology has revealed that during the same time as the Roman census of 4 B. C., both Jupiter, Saturn and Mars crossed in front of one another on three different occasions, which would have created a cosmic site to behold for ancient man. However, there is another likely scenario. From April to June of 6 B.C., both Jupiter and Venus crossed paths, creating a spectacular cosmic "new star," or so it would seemed to ancient man. In addition, this "new star" would have appeared directly over the land of the Jews if you were viewing it from the perspective of the Persian east. And from where did the wise men (Magi) come? This all would have had huge significance to the eastern magi, since they were literally obsessed with the stars. It therefore comes as no surprise that Herod would inquire of them regarding the "star's" significance (Matthew 2:7). Oh, and on a side note, the idea of THREE wise men is pure legend. Nobody has a clue how many of them there actually were.

And let us not forget that there were "Shepherds in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). Why is this significant? It indicates that Jesus' birth probably took place in the spring or early summer, since this was the time that shepherds would tend to their flocks all night long.

So when was Jesus actually born? Based on the evidence, the "best guess" would be between April and June of 6 B.C.

"There was no room in the inn"

Ok, so the question of when Jesus was born can be better answered by appealing to the historical record. What about the where? Here is where the biblical accounts of Matthew and Luke seem to disagree. In Matthew there is no mention that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, but rather it sort of insinuates that they already resided in the city. Luke, however, clearly states that Joseph and Mary, "went up from Galilee, out of Nazareth" and into Bethlehem as part of the census (Luke 2:4). This seems a bit bizarre, since a Roman census would expect to include the actual location where a citizen chose to reside. Why would Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem for a census? In addition, why would Joseph haul his VERY pregnant wife all the way to Bethlehem, especially when the last months of pregnancy a Jewish woman is expected to sequester herself with only the company of fellow women? And where do we get this idea that the birth of Jesus was somehow rushed? Almost like a quasi-emergency?

In addition to these questions, we also must eliminate a very large and thoroughly accepted myth surrounding the Nativity scene. In Luke 2:7 it states:

"And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

This verse is very telling from a historical perspective, but is also unfortunately very loaded with modern preconceptions. For a modern reader, this verse seems clear enough. Mary gave birth to Jesus, swaddled him to keep him warm, placed him in a trough of some sort, since all of the inn's were full that night.

Now let's try a reading from the ANCIENT world's perspective.

Mary (who's Aramaic name would have been pronounced Mariam or Maryam) is a young girl of 14-17 years of age. She's scared for her life because an estimated 30% of women in the ancient world die from child labor. As a result, she is surrounded by the women she trusts most in her life (possibly a mother, aunt, etc.) Childbirth is exclusively a woman's role in the ancient world, so Joseph is possibly waiting outside. Upon delivering the baby, Mary and the other women quickly wrap Jesus tightly in long strips of cloth to not only protect the baby but also as part of Jewish birth ritual. Mariam (Mary) possibly places Jesus in a hay-filled trough of sorts, but most likely simply holds the infant close. The manger, which comes from the Greek word Phatne is not mentioned because in all likelihood Mary, Jesus and everyone else is already IN the manger. Phatne is actually translated to mean stable or animal stall In the ancient world, peasant families usually lived in two level homes. The animals lived below in the dirt, mud, etc., while the people lived above in an INN. So, Jesus was born in the phatne (i.e. stable area below) because there was no room for Mary to give birth in the INN above.

This historical revision of the nativity makes much more sense, especially when we consider the reality that Bethlehem, in the time of Jesus, was a small town and would not have had INN's. Our modern reading is skewed in this regard. Joseph did not go looking for an INN. We seem to be under a delusion that the ancient world had a Holiday Inn or something like it in every city. They did not. This also makes sense when we consider that the wise men (Magi) came not immediately after the birth of Jesus, but possibly months or even years after the occasion took place. Naturally, they went to the home of Joseph and Mary, not some hotel or cave.

And while the popular culture's view of the Nativity story is more exciting, it is important to remember that even if history debunks the "myths" surrounding Christ's birth the most important of all factors remains: Jesus Christ was in fact born on the earth. Even if it wasn't in a cave off on the side of the road in Bethlehem, since all the hotels were full, the birth of Jesus was a miracle. Planets crossed paths at the exact moment, a young teenage peasant girl survived the rigors of childbirth, and a Savior entered the world. It can't get much better than that.