The Not So "Holy," Not So "Roman" Empire

For students of Medieval Europe, the geopolitical entity known by historians as the Holy Roman Empire is a unique and fascinating topic to research.  Speaking for myself on a personal level, studying the history of the Holy Roman Empire is a revealing and enlightening experience, because it shows just how much emphasis our Medieval forefathers placed on resurrecting the idea of Roma.  Despite all of the social degradation  cultural erosion and spiritual revolution that came as a result of the "fall" of Rome, Europeans, at least the elites of society, still embraced the belief in the glory of Rome, and tried to resurrect it with all of their might.

By nature, to study the history of the Holy Roman Empire is to take a nostalgic trip that inevitably leads you to the history of the Roman Empire itself.  After all, the "Holy Romans" of the Holy Roman Empire considered themselves to be heirs to the glory of Rome itself.  For them, Rome hadn't so much "fallen" as it had "transformed."  It was their duty and blessing to carry on the sacred and glorious legacy of Rome.  Rome may have undergone a "metamorphosis" but all of the ideology, power, glory and prestige that had been endowed upon the Caesars of old was theirs to cherish once again.

But in the end, this was all wishful thinking on their part; a pipe dream to help salve the Medieval world from this one painful and unavoidable truth:  Rome, at least in the Western world, was gone.  The "Dark Ages" had all but extinguished any flicker of hope in rekindling the true glory and power that was Rome, but this didn't stop our Medieval fathers from trying. 

In reality, the Holy Roman Empire had very little in common with its namesake.  It's title was little more than a relic to an extinct but still revered era.  Yet despite its inability to resurrect the glory of one of mankind's greatest civilizations, The Holy Roman Empire did leave an indelible impression upon Europe; one that is unique and different from that of Rome itself, but still critical to the development of Europe.

Traditionally, the Holy Roman Empire's roots are dated back to either Charlemagne or Otto the Great (Otto I).  Most Medieval historians are divided on whose reign it was that served as the true "starting point" for the HRE, but for me, it's Charlemagne all the way.  First off, Charlemagne saw himself (much like his father) as the great "protector" of Christianity and the papacy.  His campaigns against Muslims and "Christianization" (forced) of those he conquered, along with his coronation as Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas of 800, all illustrate Charlemagne's intent.  He wasn't just a "conqueror" like Clovis or Charles Martel, who just happened to be "Christianized" along the way.  Charlemagne was a believer all the way.

But Charlemagne's new found prestige wasn't enough.  He needed to add more than just glorious victories in battle and spiritual religious endorsement to his legacy.  And, naturally, the idea of being crowned Emperor or Caesar (Charlemagne was called both) had tremendous appeal.  Essentially, this act would put him in the class of Augustus, Constantine and Marcus Aurelius.  Charlemagne could become a legend.

But the Holy Roman Empire had little more than self-proclaimed titles to offer its chief leaders.  Unlike the actual Roman Empire, with its vast territories, extensive infrastructure and complex social hierarchy, the Holy Roman Empire was brutish, limited and constantly infested with conflicts between the religious and secular worlds.  For example, the Investiture Controversy, which primarily pitted the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV against Pope Gregory VII, revealed just how heated the divide between the religious and the secular world had become.  Unlike Ancient Rome, which (at least until its later years) managed to maintain a monopoly of control, thus keeping religious zealots (for the most part) at check, the Holy Roman Empire was a constant fight between Emperors and Popes, men of glory v. men of God.

In addition to it's regular tussles with matters of religion, the Holy Roman Empire also lacked a cohesion between the reigns of its kings.  Unlike Ancient Rome, which, though regularly beset by wars, coups and civil unrest from time to time, but was still able to maintain an intimidating and legitimate foothold on its empire, the Holy Roman Empire faced constant upheaval, never-ending turmoil and repeated revision of its borders.  The Holy Roman Empire, depending on its leader, experienced every extreme on the political and social spectrum, at times emerging as the dominant power in Europe while at others appearing more like a laughable lame duck society.

Regardless of how it differed from its ancient counterpart, the compelling factor we must all remember is that the Holy Roman Empire, despite all of its imperfections and struggles, was, at heart, an attempt to rekindle the glory of the ancient world.  We must never forget that for many of our Medieval ancestors the glory of Rome was still very much a Utopian dream that they sincerely believed could be resurrected.  And though much of this rebirth came in the form of Catholic Christianity as opposed to civic collaboration, the Holy Roman Empire should be seen as its contemporaries saw it: a rekindling of the ideas of Ancient Rome with a major dose of Christianity as a twist.

1,700th Anniversary of Milvian Bridge: The Most Influential Battle in History

Situated just outside of Rome, and stretched across the Tiber River is an old stone bridge named Ponte Milvio.  Originally built in 206 B.C., this bridge served as a main thoroughfare to the capitol city of the Roman Empire.  It is a peaceful and well-preserved monument that serves as a beautiful ornament to the natural beauty of the Roman countryside. 

But 1,700 years ago this week, the Milvian Bridge was anything but a calm and peaceful place.  In fact, it was the sight of arguably the most important and influential battle in world history: The Battle of Milvian Bridge.

To be able to truly understand and appreciate the importance of this battle, we need to travel back in time to an era when Roman might was at its peak.  The year is 285.  The Roman Empire is under the reign of Emperor Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (Dioletian).  Emperor Dioletian had just delivered Rome from a period marked by military and social anarchy, and a long-awaited, but unsettling sense of peace had finally fallen upon the great empire.  Unsettling due to the fact that “Barbarians” lay and wait at nearly all of Rome's borders.  Franks and Goths surround the Rhine region in the North, while Persian invaders are a constant threat in the south.  War was on the minds and hearts of nearly every Roman frontiersman.  Emperor Dioletian was also troubled with the lack of cohesion that infested his army and empire  The Western (Latin) world had all but separated itself (culturally and socially) from the Eastern (Greek) portion of the empire, and both seemed content to live without the other.  In addition, a newly emerging movement, originally started by an unlikely but charismatic peasant Jew named Jesus of Nazareth, had begun to spread throughout the empire, angering pagan traditionalists like Emperor Diocletian.

As a result, Emperor Dioletian elected to open a new chapter in Roman History by creating what he saw as a permanent solution to Rome's problems.  By creating what became known as the Roman "Tetrarchy" (rule by 4), Diocletian divided the empire in half (the Western Latin and Eastern Greek), and assigned two rulers to each half: an "Augustus" to rule, with a "Caesar" to assist.  Diocletian assigned himself ruler of the Eastern portion, while his friend, Maximianus, ruled the west.  Under this system, each Augustus/Caesar duo would (ideally) be able to address the needs of the empire with greater efficiency.  And for Diocletian, he would be able to more successfully eradicate the "infection" that was Christianity.

To assist Maximianus in the west as Caesar was a young but very successful military man named Constantius Chlorus.  Chlorus was your typical rags to riches story.  As the son of poor peasants, Chlorus should never have become a great leader, but his military prowess and bravery proved irresistible to the Empire.  Chlorus quickly climbed the ranks of power, eventually becoming second in command (Caesar) of the West.  To keep him loyal, however (you could never TRULY trust a peasant), Diocletian had Chlorus' oldest son, Constantine, live with him in the East. 

As a "hostage"/guest in the East, Constantine grew up seeing first-hand the progression and attempted suppression of this strange new religion called Christianity.  Like many earlier emperors, Diocletian saw Christianity as a vulgar and lame movement of the ignorant masses.  It's doctrine of forgiveness and suppression of worldly wealth surely appealed to the peasantry, making Christianity a possible threat to the security of the empire.  It is therefore no surprise as to why so many Roman leaders sought its eradication.  In addition, Constantine benefited from living in the East by experiencing a culture different than his own.  It would be an experience that would define him for the rest of his life.  

Now, fast forward a few decades.  Diocletian is dead and Rome has (once again) plunged itself into Civil War.  Constantine, who was finally reunited with his father, was busy fighting the "savage" Picts, who were natives of a strange island called Britannia. Sadly, Constantine's father had fallen mortally wounded on the battlefield, leaving his son in change of the army.  Back home in Rome, things were even worse.  A young man named Maxentius had taken control of the capitol city and proclaimed himself the ultimate ruler of the empire.  There was only one problem: Constantine was his father's son, and he (along with his army) didn't want to see Rome fall into the hands of Maxentius.  Long story short, Constantine turned his army towards Rome to "liberate" the empire.

"BY THIS SIGN YOU SHALL CONQUER"   

For nearly 5 years Constantine and Maxentius remained at constant odds with each other over the throne of the Western Roman Empire.  While Constantine had the love and backing of his father’s army, and had proved a very capable military leader, he still lacked one very important asset: control of Rome itself.  Maxentius had not only the backing of the Roman Senate (who would have backed anyone that ruled the city) but he also had the luxury of being on the defensive.  Constantine had the massive burden of having to bring the fight to Rome’s doorsteps. 

Finally in late October of 312, Constantine's army was greeted by the forces of Maxentius on the outskirts of Rome.  The final decisive battle was just days away, and Constantine had to quickly figure out a way for his army (outnumbered 3-1) to defeat the entrenched forces of his foe.  Legend has it that on the eve of the great battle (October 27th) Constantine separated himself from his army to find a moment of solitude and reflection.  It was during those moments that Constantine, according to his historian Eusebius, looked up to the sky and saw a burning cross upon the sun with the Greek letters XP (Or the “Chi-Rho,” the first 2 letters in the Greek word for Christ) entwined with the cross.  Constantine then claimed he heard a voice say to his heart, “In hoc signo vinces” meaning “By this sign, you shall conquer.” 

Knowing that this sign represented Jesus Christ, the hero of Christianity, Constantine took the heavenly manifestation as a sign that the Christian God would lead him to victory.  As a result, Constantine ordered the Chi-Rho image to be placed on the shields and uniforms of his soldiers.  These first "Christian soldiers" would be the first to march into battle with the cross at their vanguard...even though most probably had no clue what it represented. 

THE BATTLE

Very little is known about the actual Battle of Milvian Bridge.  What we do know (again, most coming from Eusebius) is that Maxentius' superior numbers and entrenched forces were unable to stop the onslaught of Constantine's army, which forced Maxentius and him men to flee across the Milvian Bridge.  Unfortunately for Maxentius (and certainly a "divine" intervention to Constantine), the Milvian Bridge suddenly collapsed under the weight of the fleeing army.  Maxentius' body, which had plummeted with his men into the depths of the Tiber, was fished out on Constantine's orders, beheaded, and put on a pike as a trophy for Constantine's triumphant march into Rome (VERY Christian of him). 

But not only did Constantine and a decapitated Maxentius march through Rome's gates on that cold October day 1,700 years ago.  Christianity, which amounted to maybe 10-15% of the population (but was growing fast), received its greatest victory.  With his victory at Milvian Bridge, Constantine (forever after remembered as Constantine the Great) became the premiere leader of Rome.  And remembering his supernatural experience at Milvian Bridge, Constantine granted Christianity the chief seat at his table.  The religion that had primarily been a movement and belief of persecuted peasants was now the sanctioned faith of the most powerful man on the planet.  Eventually the entire western world and billions across the globe would convert to its teachings and embrace the Christ as the one and only true God. 

To truly appreciate the importance of Constantine’s victory at Milvian Bridge one should imagine the world as it would have become had he lost.  Maxentius would have been hailed the supreme emperor of Rome, and the pagan gospel of his ancestors would likely have continued as the premiere faith of the empire.  Christianity would have continued to be an institution that in the eyes of most aristocrats was undesirable and evil.  Its patrons would have most certainly continued to be persecuted and hunted like dogs.  The Nicean Creed, along with the formation of the Papacy (which all took place under Constantine's eye) and other institutions would have never occurred.  This in turn would mean that the invading Germanic tribes, like the Franks and the Goths, would never have become Christians to the massive degree that they became.  

Sure, Christianity was a growing and flourishing movement at the time of Constantine, and one could argue that eventually the faith would have spread even further.  However, there is little doubt that Constantine's stamp of approval gave Christianity an advantage it had never before experienced.  The subsequent evolution and development of Christianity (primarily through its Roman Catholic roots) would never have happened without Constantine and his victory at Milvian Bridge.  As a result, the Christianity we have today would have looked VERY different (if it would have survived at all) without Constantine's initial spark. 

Christians today owe their FAITH to Christ.  His doctrine and teachings are the defining markers in the lives of billions.  With that said, Christians today owe their CHRISTIANITY to Constantine.  The brand of Christianity, with its 1,700 years of evolution and development, all trace back to a random little bridge that spans the Tiber River.  Without Milvian Bridge, it is likely that you, me and every other professing Christian would have a VERY different type of faith today, even if that faith were still Christianity.  Of course, I'm not saying that Constantine was somehow more important than Christ himself; only that his impact (starting at Milvian Bridge) should have its due recognition. 

Milvian Bridge: the most influential battle in world history!

Hydatius: The Medieval World's Doomsday Prognosticator

Human beings have always been fascinated with "doomsday" stories.  For whatever reason, the idea that humanity might come to an end via alien invasion, a killer comet, nuclear war or religious apocalypse has caused almost every generation and civilization to predict where, when and how the end of days might play out.  I have actually blogged about this phenomenon  before.  American culture is full of examples of doomsday practitioners who tailor their rhetoric to invoke the desired reaction from their target audience.  Whether it takes the form of fire and brimstone televangelists, doom and gloom political pundits, awe inspiring Hollywood films or mysterious Mayan predictions, we Americans seem to have a love/hate relationship with all things apocalyptic. 

But we Americans are far from alone in our apparent affinity for the end of days.  Virtually every civilization in every corner of the world has their doomsday stories.  One of my all-time favorites comes out of Medieval Europe, from the 5th century to be specific. 

Along the Iberian Peninsula, in what is today Spain, a man named Hydatius lived a life of faithful devotion to the emerging religion known as Christianity.  In fact, so great was his piety that in 427, Hydatius was made Bishop of Chaves, where he labored extensively to establish the church in that particular part of the Late Roman Empire.  Hydatius had a reputation for rooting out any and all forms of Christian heresy and pagan loyalty.  As a result, his name was revered by many of the chief figureheads of both Rome and the church.

Despite his tenacity and zeal for the work of the church, Hydatius was forced to come to terms with the changing world around him.  The Western Roman Empire was dying a slow, painful death that was only being made worse by the intrusion of northern "barbarian" tribes who were eager to feast of the rotting carcases of the once great empire.  For Hydatius, this reality was an extremely bitter pill to swallow.  Rome, and the church, were the palpable reality of God's kingdom on Earth.  With Alaric's sacking of Rome in 410 still fresh in the minds of many (not to mention the other barbarian incursions and mounting political instability of the Western Roman Empire), the idea that the Roman Empire might disappear completely was a painful future to consider. 

Due in large part to the emergence of the Christian faith along with the rapidly approaching demise of the Roman Empire, men like Hydatius were quick to assume that not only might Rome come to an end, but the world itself by be nearing its conclusion.  Beginning with the creation story from the Book of Genesis, Hydatius sought to place all of human history within the context of a linear progression, starting with Adam and Eve and ending with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, which Hydatius believed to be right around the corner (some sources specify the date of May 27, 482).  In fact, Hydatrius could easily be considered as the "father" of the Christian end of days phenomenon, in which virtually every succeeding generation has followed his example.  As a member of the social elite, Hydatius had access to a number of chronographic and historical sources, and he cited them extensively in his forecasts of the end of the world (though he often exaggerated the historical records or simply made stuff up to fit his agenda).  As a result, Hydatius gained quite the following, even among some in the upper class.

In addition to establishing the precedent of fitting a world apocalypse within the construct of Christianity, Hydatius was a pro at depicting the end of the world as a doom and gloom event.  Much in the same way that a Glenn Beck or a Harold Camping of today spins their rhetoric to invoke fear and terror of the future, Hydatius was a master of fear mongering.  For example:

Such are the contents of the present volume, but I have left it to my successors to account of the Last Days, at that time at which they encounter them...famines run riot, so dire that driven by hunger human beings devoured human flesh; mothers too feasted upon the bodies of of their own children whom they had killed and cooked with their own hands...And thus with the four plagues of sword, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts raging everywhere throughout the world, the annunciations foretold by the Lord through his prophets came to fulfilment.

As you can see, Hydatius didn't have to look far to find his "ammunition."  All around, examples of the crumbling Roman world were to be found, and Hydatius was like a kid in a candy store.  The animalistic, heathen barbarians, intent on rape, pillage, plunder, destruction, enslavement and conquest, were the perfect characters for any and all devil/anti-Christ roles that could be imagined.  In short, Hydatius' life, and that of his contemporaries, is a miserable, hopeless, decrepit and evil existence, but all is well because the end was coming...and coming SOON!   

All of this begs the question, "Were things really as bad in the 5th century as Hydatius makes them out to be?"  The quick answer to this question is a resounding, "No."  Sure, the Western Roman world was a world in change and constant flux.  Political strife and social decay, coupled with the rise of "barbarian" northerners and the Christian religion, all made for a very unpredictable world.  But this does not mean that the world itself was hanging by a thread or that good, innocent people were living in a constant state of panic.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of commoners probably never heard or cared about the type of rhetoric that Hydatius was spinning.  For most peasants, coloni, etc., like was pretty much the status quo existence of farming, socializing within a very limited and localized structure, praying to god(s), etc.  Hydatius' message was not one that got a ton of airtime and he was clearly embellishing things to advance his apocalyptic message.  From historian E.A. Thompson's book, Romans and Barbarians:

The entry of the barbarians into Spain in 409 was an event which made an impact, but not a resounding impact, on the chroniclers of the outside world.  Most of them speak of it, but the do so briefly -- only in a few words...For Hydatius, on the other hand, it was a calamity which deserved as much space as the Fall of Rome itself...a disaster which dumbfounded the civilized world.

With that said, Hydatius' accounts, though sensationalized and often misleading, provide some important glimpses into the 5th century history of Spain.  As such, they are an invaluable treasure.  Of course, much of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  After all, we now know with the blessing of hindsight that the world didn't end in 482 (far from it), nor was the "barbarian invasion" into the dying Roman Empire the end of the world.  In fact, it marked the beginning for the emerging Medieval societies of Europe, not to mention the future greatness of Christianity as the single most influential force of the next 1000+ years.

When did Scotland Become Scotland?

According to contemporary wisdom (not to mention the wisdom of historians over the past few centuries) Scotland was the result of Irish immigration into northwestern Britain shortly after the fall of Rome. The reasons for this take on Scotland's origins are many, most notably the fact that Gaelic language and culture had overtaken a large part of the region. In addition, the natural response by the "native" Picts of the British isles against the incursion of the Roman empire, helped to spawn not only a resistance movement but a movement that would eventually culminate in the creation of a new national conscience.

Originally known to the Romans as the "savage Picts" who inhabited the northern lands of "Britannia", these early Scottish forefathers proved to be a nuisance to the massive juggernaut that was the Roman empire. In fact, many scholars believe that the construction of Hadrian's Wall in 122 A.D. was to defend the northernmost borders of the empire from the invading Picts (It is worth noting, however, that this hypothesis is often rejected by other historians who argue that the sparsely populated lands of the Picts were really no threat or match for the mighty Roman Army. And though that may be the case, the fact remains that the wall was built at great cost to the Emperor, who must have seen a need for it).

It was in the twilight years of the empire that historians believe the world of the Picts became increasingly influenced by migrating Gaels (early Irish) who left an unmistakable impression on the region through their culture and language. In fact, the Venerable Bede (a historian and monk of this era) even noted the migration of early Irish Gaels to the region and the origins of Bede speaks extensively about the creation of Dál Riata, which was a hybrid kingdom of Gaelic Irish and Picts that existed on the western coast of modern Scotland., In the 10th century the kings of the Scots produced a similar “foundation legend” which traced their lineage back to Irish ancestors who came to Dál Riata as conquerors.

But just how credible is this history? Certainly the majority of historians/archaeologists accept it as the most plausible explanation on the origins of what eventually becomes Scotland.

But not everybody is sold.

Renowned Scottish historian Dauvit Broun has challenged the status quo interpretation of Scotland's ultimate origins in the following article from History Today. I glean the following summary of Campbell's work from historian Tim Clarkson's blog:

If the Scots had arrived from Ireland in large numbers we would expect them to build dwellings of similar types to the ones they left behind. No such evidence has been found, nor do the place-names of Argyll [the quasi-capitol of Dál Riata] suggest that a mass of Gaelic-speaking immigrants supplanted an indigenous Pictish or British population. It is usual for traces of an earlier language to be visible among place-names coined in the speech of an invader but the Argyll names are so thoroughly Gaelic that they actually appear to be indigenous. Some historians believe that the Scots came to Britain as a small, elite group of kings and aristocrats. This could possibly explain the lack of archaeological evidence for a mass-migration but, as Campbell points out, high-status foreigners would have imposed the trappings of their own culture on the native elites whom they conquered or absorbed. We should therefore expect the decorated brooch – the ubiquitous badge of high-status among early medieval cultures – to show Irish characteristics whenever an example is unearthed in the archaeology of Argyll. Again, no such evidence is forthcoming: the brooches worn by the early Scots are of recognizably British rather than of Irish design.

What, then, of the foundation legend mentioned by Bede? Surely his testimony – having been written in the 8th century – must count for something? Campbell makes a strong case for believing that Bede was merely stating the earliest form of an origin-story that the Scots would later richly embellish in the 10th century. Such tales were very common in early medieval Europe and were often concocted as political propaganda to create suitably dramatic origins for dominant royal dynasties.

As an alternative hypothesis Campbell envisages no migration from Ireland to Argyll other than a cultural one arising from social and economic links across the narrow seas between the two areas. These links led to the adoption of Gaelic as the common language of trade and social interaction but, although the people of Argyll became Gaelic-speakers, their distinctive regional identity was strong enough to preserve their indigenous culture in the face of Irish influences. Campbell suggests that the linguistic shift from Brittonic to Gaelic was achieved during the pre-Roman Iron Age. Thus, when Roman writers spoke of the Scotti (Scots) of Ireland they were probably referring collectively to all Gaelic speakers – including the Scots of Argyll

An interesting hypothesis to say the least. Campbell does present some interesting questions on the lack of archaeological evidence of early Irish dwellings and the possibility that Gaelic was an indigenous language and not adopted at a later time. With that said, I still believe that these questions cannot refute Bede's account or the fact that the Picts clearly adopted Gaelic language and culture (The Pict language became obsolete shortly thereafter). And, of course, Scotland's ultimate sense of "nation-ness" doesn't emerge until after Wallace, Robert the Bruce, etc. (one could argue that they are still arguing over this concept now that they are a part of Great Britain). Personally, I believe that Scotland's ultimate origins are probably a hybrid of both of these schools. They are a little bit country (Ireland) and a little bit rock and roll (England).

Happy Samhain...er...Pomona...er...Halloween

In my opinion, one of the coolest aspects of history is to see how ancient customs and traditions from hundreds or even thousands of years ago still manage to weave themselves into our 21st century world. Such is the case with many of our current holidays. Whether it be Saturnalia (Christmas), Imbolc (Groundhog Day) or St. Patrick's Day, it is astonishing to see just how many of these ancient pagan traditions are still with us today, even if their meanings have been lost to time.

Such is the case with Halloween. This holiday, which has become a favorite for children in many parts of the world, has its roots in an era from long ago.

In the highlands of modern day Ireland and many other parts of the British Isles, the Celtic festival of Samhain was celebrated by scores of small towns and villages throughout the land. Samhain (one of the most important Celtic holidays), which was essentially an end of the harvest festival, marked the beginning of winter's reign (called the "dark half" of the year). During this day (the night of October 31 extending into the morning of November 1), Celts believed that the barrier between the living world and the "otherworld" was so thin that the souls of the deceased were able to easily pass between the two.

And while it may seem strange to us in the modern world to hear of mystical barriers between one world and the next being thinned on a singular fall evening, we need to keep in mind that the ancient world of Celts was deeply dependent on the elements. As agricultural societies of the ancient world, Celtic people understood all too well what the winter months meant. Is it any wonder that these people, who saw dying trees, plants, animals and even people with the advent of winter, would see October 31 as a day when the barrier between the living and the dead faded?

During the celebration of Samhain, Celts would invoke the help of their local priests (druids) to pray to the gods for safety from death. These prayers reached a crescendo on Samhain, when the souls of the dead (particularly those who had died in the previous year) could come to the aid of their loved ones.

But not all the souls who crossed into the land of the living were kind. As a result, Celts went to extremes to protect themselves from these unwanted visitors. Bonfires on the outskirts of town were dedicated to the gods as a way to beg for the return of the sun and as a way to keep the evil spirits away. Average people would also dress up in various costumes to ward off the unwanted spirits from their village. In addition, blood sacrifices of animals were regularly made by druid priests, who believed that on Samhain they could better predict the future of the coming year than on any other day.

Samhain wasn't the only festival in the ancient world. In Rome, the celebration of Pomona, the goddess of fruits and gardens, was held on November 1. On this day, divination games (essentially fortune telling games) were a regular part of the Pomona celebration. One of the many games, particularly for men and women who had reached the age of maturity, was to bob for apples, peel the skin, toss the skin over one's shoulder and then analyze it to see which letter of the alphabet it resembled. It was believed that the letter was the first letter of the man/woman that the participant would marry. As the Roman empire continued to expand into northern Europe the ideas of Pomona (the celebration of the harvest) and Samhain (the celebration of the dead) began to fuse with each other. Soon the Roman and Celtic festivals became a united and mainstream celebration that spanned over an entire continent.

But Pomona/Samhain would not overcome every obstacle. With the emergence of Christianity as the preeminent force of the Medieval World, the celebration of Pomona/Samhain would change forever. With its hostility towards all things pagan, the Catholic Church quickly sought for the removal of festivals like Samhain (and Saturnalia). However, church authorities quickly realized that these beliefs and traditions couldn't simply be squashed out. As a result, the church adopted a different tactic. Under the direction of Pope Gregory I, church authorities no longer sought to remove pagan ideas but to Christianize them. Pagan idols were given Christian identities while the pagan devotion to the souls of the dead was converted into a devotion to saints.

Under Pope Leo VI this tactic of pagan "hijacking" was taken even further by the creation of All Saints Day, or All Hallows Day on November 1st. On this day, all of the chosen saints of God were praised by the church, while devout disciples and priests prayed for their assistance to intercede on their behalf with god (does this ring a bell with the ancient Samhain rituals?). As a result, the day before All Hallows Day (October 31st) was known to Christians as "All Hallows Eve", which was eventually shortened to "Hallows Eve'n" and then "Halloween."

But the demonetization of pagan beliefs didn't stop there. In 1486 Pope Innocent VIII made witchcraft (by papal decree) the work of the devil. In consequence, traditional pagan roles for female druids were castigated as being the work of Satan. Needless to say, this spawned a title wave of fear and animosity towards anyone who had the slightest appearance of being a witch. Ridiculous new laws and tests were created to help "identify" witches. Black cats were seen as being the animal embodiment of a witch's soul and were considered bad luck if they crossed one's path. Heck, even the famous Joan of Arc was killed on the grounds that she was a witch!

Halloween wouldn't alway remain in the hands of the Catholics. On October 31, 1517 Marin Luther published his "95 Theses" against the Catholic Church. One of his main grievances, which became a staple of Protestantism, was a rejection of all things linked to popes, priests and saints. As a result, Halloween became a horrific celebration for devout followers of Luther and Protestantism in general. For example, Puritan settlers in America forbade its celebration (along with Christmas) from taking place in the New World. Perhaps this helps to also explain their paralyzing fear of witches, which eventually overcame them and brought about the Salem Witch Trials.

Which brings us to today, where Halloween is seen as a secular holiday for kids. And though this current interpretation is a lot more serene than those of old (no witches have been burned in quite some time) it is still important to remember the origins. After all, they show us just how much we still maintain the legends and symbols of old.

Did Jesus Endorse a Separation of Church and State?

And if so, How Far Did
He Want it to Go?

So I realize that this post is likely to ruffle a few feathers. After all, many people have very passionate feelings about the man from Nazareth known to billions of followers as Jesus the Christ. With this in mind, I will try to treat the topic with as much care as I can.

The very question posed in this post probably seems strange. After all, Jesus and his teachings, at least for the devout Christian, seem to transcend trivial political issues like church/state separation. Why would the Savior of mankind care about political ideology, governmental structure, etc. when he himself was called "King of kings and Lord of lords"? Shouldn't that suffice? Why would Jesus waste his time addressing the relatively mundane details surrounding issues like prayer in school, the oaths of the Pledge of Allegiance, the role (if any) that organized religion should play in the halls of government, etc., etc. etc.? Perhaps Gov.Mike Huckabee said it best when asked what Jesus would do as a modern politician:




And perhaps he is right. Surely Jesus would spend his time dealing with more important matters, right?

Not so fast.

While it is true that Jesus' primary goal was to bring people to him as the Savior of mankind, it would be both foolish and inaccurate to state that he cared nothing of the affairs of this world. And even though he made it clear that his "kingdom was not of this world," Jesus was, on occasion, quite vocal and passionate about the affairs this world.

Render to Caesar

During his ministry, Jesus was, from time to time, confronted by some of the more prominent members of Jewish society in an effort to confront him or catch him in a lie of sorts, all in an effort to discredit the man whom they esteemed as an enemy to their agenda. On one occasion, two different groups (the Pharisees and Herodians) confronted Jesus in an effort to "entangle him in his talk." Both the Parisees and Herodians hated Jesus (for different reasons) and believed that entangling him in his words, especially on hot-button political matters, might discredit him in the eyes of his followers. We read of what happened in Matthew 22:

15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19. Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21. They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

There's a great deal to dissect in these eight verses. First off, the Pharisees and Herodians attempt to trap Jesus by appealing to his teachings regarding the supremacy of god. In Roman society, Caesar was esteemed to be a deity and those who rejected such teachings were often met with ridicule and scorn. Taxes were the predominant way in which homage to Caesar was acknowledged and as a result, any attempt to avoid them was met with severe consequences. So, in the minds of the Pharisees and Herodians, Jesus was trapped. If he answered that man should not pay tribute to Caesar he would be seen as an enemy of the state. But if he agreed with paying tribute, he would come off looking like a hypocrite, since Jesus had emphasized the supremacy of the kingdom of god to that of man.

So what was Jesus to do? Blast their argument to oblivion of course! Matthew tells us that Jesus "perceived their wickedness" and got right to the heart of the matter. By using a mere penny (most certainly a denarius in Roman coinage) Jesus completely and totally surprised (or as Matthew states "marveled") his audience by uttering the now famous phrase, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." This simple phrase completely baffled the Pharisees to such a degree that they simply walked away with their tail between their legs. Jesus came away the clear victor.

Church/State Separation as a Christian Concept

So why where the Pharisees and Herodians so baffled by Jesus' seemingly simple remark? After all, this wouldn't sound that profound of a rebuttal to politicians or theologians today. Well, let's keep in mind that we are speaking of the ANCIENT world; a world that had long fused the political and theological worlds together by establishing kingships, Caesars and other "divine" rulers. The notion of an independent church, separate and sovereign from the secular world, was more than just a novel concept. It was revolutionary. As a result, we can logically and rationally proclaim that a separation between church and state is very much a CHRISTIAN concept. As my blog buddy Brian Tubbs points out by quoting Dinesh D'Souza's bestselling book, What's So Great About Christianity:

D'Souza argues that the "separation of religion and government" was a "Christian idea" and that Jesus was the "first one who thought of it." D'Souza points to Jesus' confrontation with the Herodians and Pharisees in Matthew 22 as the birth of the concept.

D'Souza explains that, for the ancient Greeks and Romans, the "gods a man should worship were the gods of the state." Accordingly, "patriotism demanded that a good Athenian make sacrifices to the Athenian gods and a good Roman pay homage to the gods of Rome."

Well, along come the Christians, who refuse to worship the Roman gods. This was unacceptable to Roman authorities (at least prior to Constantine)...

In Matthew 22, Jesus clearly teaches that Caesar is entitled to certain "things" (and he implies taxes as being among those "things"), but draws a line of distinction. Caesar is NOT entitled to everything, only some things.

Likewise, Jesus implies a limit in the other direction. While God is sovereign and all-powerful, Jesus nevertheless explains (later to Pilate): "My kingdom is not of this world."

According to D'Souza, "God has chosen to exercise a limited domain over earthly rule, not because He is limited, but because He has turned over part of His kingdom to humans for earthly supervision."

Jesus of Nazareth was clearly in favor of a separation between church and state not because he wanted a secular society but because he wanted a moral one, and the best way to ensure that was to take religion out of the hands of the politicians. Jesus and his apostles had seen first hand what religious politicians (Pharisees, Herodians, etc.) had done to religion and Jesus clearly wanted no part of it. Rarely if ever did Jesus "trash talk" anyone but he certainly did with these types. As he stated in Matthew 12:34:

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

And throughout his ministry, Jesus would continue his insistence on church/state separation:

"My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)

"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve god an mammon." (Matthew 6:24.)

"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me." (Luke 22:25–26, 29)

"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (Luke 18: 9-14)

And Jesus didn't stop there. Even when tempted of the devil and the masses to be made a king (a physical, worldly king since he was presumably already "King of kings") over all the land, Jesus flat-out refused:

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4: 5-8)

"Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:13–14)

"Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." (John 6: 13-15)

But with all of his apparent disinterest (or insistence in a separation between church and state) in secular matters, Jesus was quick and fierce in his defense of religious sovereignty. In the only account of his resorting to violence, Jesus was more than willing to "throw down" with those who made a mockery of the temple:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:13–16)

For Jesus, the pollution of worldly distractions had defiled the Lord's temple; an offense that was far worse than the introduction of religion into government. Simply put, the temple of the Lord was to be free of secular distractions, political rhetoric and worldly wealth. It was a house of sacrifice and prayer. Politicians and greedy capitalists be damned! =)

In light of such evidence, it is abundantly clear that a separation of church and state was, and still is, a CHRISTIAN concept. The very founder of the faith saw tremendous advantages to both church and state when both are put in check and denied the right to overpower the other. Under such a system, religion and government would mutually flourish not as opposing forces but as equal partners in creating a free and moral world. One could not exist without the other, and one could not exercise dominion over the other.

Our Founding Fathers (both the ultra-pious and "infidel" types) had a perfect understanding of this concept. They saw that the establishment of a joint church/state government had brought nothing but misery to the world, and they were hell bent on ensuring that it wouldn't happen in the "land of the free":

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country." (George Washington, 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274).

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814).

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785).

These quotes, and the thousands of others like them, do not illustrate an abhorrence of religion on the part of the founders, but instead illustrate the incredible depth of understanding they possessed with regards to Jesus' true teachings. In other words, the founders were able to cut through the B.S. and get at the core of the matter. A separation of church and state was THE FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT to ensuring a free republic. Losing sight of this all-important concept was to lose sight of freedom itself, to lose sight of Jesus himself.

And, thank God, the founders didn't lose sight of either.

Romans 13 and the American Revolution

Over at my other blog (American Creation) a large debate over the significance and interpretation of Romans chapter 13 has been raging for the past few months. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Romans 13, it is a chapter in which the Apostle Paul lays out some of the "rules" regarding a Christian's duty to follow civic leaders. Here are a few of the more important verses from that chapter:

1. Let 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.

As is evident in the aforementioned verses, Paul admonishes the Christian populace to submit to even the wickedest of leaders because "Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." In other words, to defy a leader is to defy God himself.

Immediately prior to the American Revolution, a decent percentage of theologians became deeply concerned with the Biblical implications of the American Revolution. Was God going to be angry at the colonists for their rebellion to the British King? Especially when we consider that Paul was admonishing the Christians to submit to the horrific reign of Nero? After all, if submission to Nero was imperative to the salvation of the practicing Christian, what right did the American colonists have to rebel against a King who wasn't nearly as bad?

As I mentioned before, this has been a very intense and thorough debate over at my group blog. I have watched, over the past several months, my fellow blog brothers debate this issue into dust. This debate usually follows the same rough outline where one person will enter the ring armed to the teeth with quotes from Locke, Rutherford, Sidney, Mayhew, Calvin, Jefferson, etc., etc., etc. Not soon after, my email inbox will be full of comment notifications, full of anxious rebukings, most of which are, like the original comment itself, delivered with powerful counter-punch material from some of the same sources. Now, it's not that I dislike this back-and-forth debating over this singular (and in my opinion, relatively unimportant) issue. On the contrary. I have found the debate to be both extremely enlightening and quite entertaining. I've admired the abilities and passions of the "key participants" (you know who you are) along with the enormous arsenal of knowledge and understanding they possess.

With that said, my personal beliefs are that the Romans 13 issue was a mere side issue compared to the other pressing challenges taking place. In a nutshell, I simply do not believe that this was as big of an issue as many are making it out to be. Please, don't get me wrong here. I realize that it was a major issue for many people. After all, obeying the will of God is no small sack of potatoes, and I realize that many people believed that salvation (not just worldly freedom) hung in the balance. However, if we take a step back and look at the grand picture, I believe we can see that the American Revolution was much larger than one simple chapter from the "Good Book" and that war with Britain was going to happen with or without Romans 13.

With all of that said, I am going to try and play along as best I can. Let's assume that I am completely wrong and that the Romans 13/God sanctioning rebellion was not only an issue but THE ISSUE of the American Revolution. Given this new sense of importance I still maintain that the debate surrounding Romans 13 was not that big of a deal for those involved in the American Revolution.

Why you ask? Because the matter had already been resolved...

...

...At lest for those who established the American republic.

Long before the Founding Fathers arrived on the scene the debate over the Kingship/rule of law had been raging for centuries. As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, a number of important theologians, thinkers, and civic leaders took up this very cause as their own. Everyone from Locke to Rutherford, Sidney to Montesquieu helped to mold how the founding generation would come to understand the relationship between God and government, government and the people and the people's duty to government.

Much has been made of Romans 13 and rightfully so. But there is another Bible chapter to consider; one that inspired a certain Samuel Rutherford to challenge Divine Right kingship. In Deuteronomy 17 we read:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

For men like Rutherford, this was clear-cut evidence from God himself that the LAW was king, not the other way around.

Algernon Sidney, whom Thomas Jefferson credited (along with Locke) as being one of the primary sources for the American conceptualization of individual liberty, agreed with Rutherford's interpretation that the rule of law was to be superior to any kingship. To defend his thesis, Sidney appealed to the very laws of nature:

If there be any precept, that by the light of nature we can in matters of this kind look upon as certain, it is, that the government of a people should be given to him that can best perform the duties of it. No man has it for himself, or from himself; but for and from those, who, before he had it, were his equals, that he may do good to them. If there were a man, who in wisdom, valour, justice, and purity, surpassed all others, he might be called a king by nature; because he is best able to bear the weight of so great a charge; and, like a good shepherd, to lead the people to do good . . . Solomon tells us, 'That a wise child is better than an old and foolish king.'

[...]

If governments arise from the consent of men, and are instituted by men according to their own inclinations, they did therein seek their own good; for the will is ever drawn by some real good, or the appearance of it. This is that which man seeks by all the regular or irregular motions of his mind. Reason and passion, virtue and vice, do herein concur.... A people therefore that sets up [government does it so]...that it may be well with themselves and their posterity.

Which of course sounds awfully familiar to:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

For Jefferson, who was never a big fan of St. Paul to begin with (you may recall that his version of the Bible contains none of Paul's epistles), Sidney's interpretation of law rang strong and clear as it pierced through the "old school" interpretation of complete submission to God's rulers. In a letter to his chubby little New England buddy John Adams, Jefferson points out just how appealing Sidney's view of government was:

I have lately undertaken to read Algernon Sidney on government...As often as I have read it, and fumbled it over, it now excites fresh admiration that this work has excited so little interest in the literary world. As splendid an edition of it as the art of printing can produce —- as well for the intrinsic merit of the work, as for the proof it brings of the bitter sufferings of the advocates of liberty from that time to this, and to show the slow progress of moral, philosophical, and political illumination in the world —- ought to be now published in America.

Of course skeptics will point out that the American Revolution cannot, in any way, be reconciled with Romans 13 because if Paul admonishes Christians to endure the treacheries of Nero, how can they possibly justify rebellion against a king who simply raised their taxes? Perhaps they are right. There may be no biblical way to justify the American Revolution. I suppose one could cite Biblical examples such as Deuteronomy 17, 1 Kings 11, Daniel's civil disobedience, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's refusal to obey Nebuchadneezar's laws, Moses, etc., but I doubt much of it would stick. Simply put,much of this debate is based off of personal biblical interpretation.

And such was the case with our founders. The moment that Jefferson, Madison, etc. committed to embracing the perspectives of Locke, Sidney, etc. they also committed, perhaps subconscientiously, to rejecting a literal interpretation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

But Paul's lesson wasn't completely ignored either. Yes, the framers of the Revolution were not about to let some obscure chapter from the Bible deter them but at the same time, they weren't about to rush into a reckless rebellion either. The trick was knowing when abuses from tyrannical leaders required a response from the people. Again, Algernon Sidney helped to provide the answer:

Those who had wit and learning, with something of ingenuity and modesty, though they believed that nations might possibly make an ill use of their power, and were very desirous to maintain the cause of kings, as far as they could put any good color upon it, yet never denied, that some had suffered justly (which could not be, if there were no power of judging them); animate them to persist in the most flagitious courses, with assurance of perpetual impunity, or engage nations in an inevitable necessity of suffering all manner of outrages. They knew that the actions of those princes, who are not altogether detestable, might be defended by particular reasons drawn from them, or their laws or their country; and would neither undertake the defense of such as were abominable, nor bring princes, to whom they wished well, into the odious extremity of justifying themselves by arguments that favored Caligula and Nero, as well as themselves, and that must be taken for a confession, that they were as bad as could be imagined.

[...]

They who are already fallen into all that is odious, and shameful and miserable, cannot justify fear...Let the dangers never be so great, there is the possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms and courage to use them but that people must surely perish who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed.

Or in other words, it is completely silly (and contrary to the laws of nature) to endure inept leaders who had demonstrated their incompetence or their ill will towards their subjects. Or as Jefferson put it:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

And while this debate is likely to rage on for months (or maybe even years) here on this fair little blog, I remain convinced that the Founders' understanding of kings and law had already been shaped by centuries of European debate on the matter. Men like Locke, Sidney, Rutherford, etc. (along with many before and after them) helped to mold (and perhaps justify) the arguments for Revolution.

But again, it doesn't really matter because war was a' coming regardless of what the Bible said.

And that's a fact, Jack!

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.

Merry Saturnalia (and a Happy Pagan New Year)

The holiday season is fully upon us, and with it the "cups of good cheer," mistletoe, holly wreaths, etc. Yes, Christmas is not only a wonderful time of the year but also one of the most celebrated holidays in the world. Over 2 billion people on the globe join together in singing their praise of the birth of Jesus Christ.

But just how "Christian" is Christmas? We all remember our Sunday School lessons about Mary and Joseph wrapping the baby Jesus in swaddling clothes and placing him in a manger. And don't forget the star and the three wise guys...er...men, who journeyed from afar to witness this December...er...spring miracle.

To understand the TRUE history behind the holiday we call Christmas, we must travel to a time when the world was dominated by pagan doctrine and Roman might. Long before Mary and Joseph made their trek to Bethlehem to pay their taxes...er...be counted in the imperial census, Roman society (along with other European groups) embraced a few interesting (and familiar) holiday traditions that may come as a surprise to the devout Christian of our modern era. So, let us pretend for a moment that we have ventured back in time to late antiquity and witness how these various European societies celebrated their winter holidays.

Our first stop in our voyage back in time will take us to one of the greatest civilizations known to man: Rome. The date is December 17th and the streets are full of celebration and jubilation. It is Saturnalia: a holiday dedicated to the pagan god Saturn, who has been loosen from his bonds during the festivities so that he can enjoy the fruits of the offerings given to him. As the god of the harvest/agriculture, Saturn is praised by the masses from having provided a bountiful harvest.

To celebrate the occasion, Roman citizens gave up their traditional toga and adorned themselves with more festive clothing. Traditionally, the clothing was green and decorated with leaves, flowers and berries. Men and women regularly took holly berries and branches and turned them into wreathes, which they placed on their heads, believing that they had the power to ward off evil spirits. It was also common in homes throughout the Roman empire to have their halls "decked" with holly in order to keep them safe from the wrath of the gods.

In addition, Saturnalia was also marked by the temporary freeing of slaves, who would often (in pure fun) switch places with their masters. Public demonstrations of sex, gambling, drunkenness were commonplace, while many other laws, which were normally punishable, were temporarily allowed (in some cases even rape). Simply put, Saturnalia became the ancient world's version of Mardi Gras.

Along with the revelry and laissez-faire Roman policies governing these holidays, many Roman citizens also took to adorning evergreen trees as part of the festival of Saturnalia. It was common for wealthy Roman families to decorate a tree with candles, silver and gold lace and to have it nailed to the floor of their home. This "Saturnalia Tree" became a symbol of Rome's collective petition to the gods for a bountiful new year. The Jews (and early Christians), refused to embrace such pagan beliefs and even preached against them. As the Bible itself states in Jeremiah 10:2-4:

2.) Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4.) They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

And while the common person was busy celebrating Saturnalia, the elites of Roman society also celebrated the birth of Mithras: the god of the unconquerable sun, whose birth fell on December 25th. For many, this was the holiest day of the year and celebrating his birth was done in the hopes that Mithra would return in full power (summer) to bless their harvest, etc.

Now that we've had our "Saturnalia fix," let us move up north a bit and enter the Norse/Celtic/Germanic regions, where the winter holidays were celebrated with just as much festivity as their Roman neighbors. For many who dwelt in the Rhineland, the celebration of Yule (or Yule-tide) took place in late December and lasted for usually twelve days (hence the Twelve days of Christmas). During the celebration of Yule, people gathered in their homes to burn the Yule Log in the hearth of their home (a tradition that eventually spread all the way to the British isles). The Yule Log was occasionally even carved into a penis shape due to the fact that some (albeit smaller) Celtic communities believed the Yule Log had the ability to impregnate.

Even our "blessed" Mistletoe has its roots in the ancient world. In both Celtic and Druidic rituals, mistletoe (which blooms in winter) was believed to be a powerful sexual stimulant. Ancient legends maintained that the juices found in the mistletoe berries were, in fact, the semen of the gods. As a result, it was believed that if a man held the mistletoe over a woman's head she would be unable to resist his sexual advances (a far cry from a simple kiss). In essence, mistletoe became the ancient world's date rape drug. Exciting!

Along with the funny looking Yule logs and sexual plants, many Germanic communities also believed that the god Odin (Lugas in Celtic England), who patrolled the skies during those cold winter nights, would decide who should prosper and suffer, live and die in the following year (a.k.a. "going to find out who's naughty or nice"). Later, of course, Odin would be woven in with other figures to give us Santa Clause, but that's a topic for another day.

So maybe you are wondering how the birth of Christ got entangled in this pagan mess. The answer is pretty basic. Once Rome became a Christian nation, the newly established Christian church found itself in competition with the entrenched pagan traditions of Roman, German and other Nordic, communities. Instead of abolishing festivals like Saturnalia, the church simply decided to embrace the holiday, but added its own elements. For example, the evergreen trees that were taken into homes were adorned with apples in an effort to symbolize the Garden of Eden (later these became ornaments). Stories of pagan gods were replaced with tales of elves, gift-giving, etc., all which eventually evolved to give us many of our current holiday symbols.

And Since none of the gospels mention specifically when Jesus was actually born, early Christian church leaders simply adopted his birth to fit an already existing holiday. Pope Gregory the Great and other early and influential popes, established the earliest foundations for converting Saturnalia into CRISTES MAESSE (which eventually evolved in the English version to CHRIST-MASS and then Christmas), called for the removal of older pagan gods to be replaced with the Christian ones. It was believed that Christ's birth would eventually replace the festival of Saturnalia and abolish its traditions. The early church was at least half right in this respect. While the implementation of Christmas eventually led to the demise of Saturnalia, the pagan traditions and celebrations remained intact, and many still permeate our celebration of Christmas to this day. In fact, if we were to see some of the earliest Christmas celebrations of the Medieval world, we would be surprised to see how similar it was to a carnival or to Halloween. Most Christians of the Middle Ages continued the ancient celebrations of Saturnalia and Yule by indulging in public drinking, lascivious sex and dressing up like demons. For over two millennia the Christmas/Saturnalia Mardi Gras never let up!

In conclusion, while many of the TRADITIONS of Christmas remain rooted in ancient pagan beliefs, there is no doubt that the SPIRIT of Christmas is something quite different. My intention for writing this was NOT to discredit the celebrating of Christmas. Quite the contrary. I believe that understanding the TRUTH of the Christmas season can actually aid in our celebration of Jesus' birth. After all, it's never been about trees, gifts, flowers etc.