As Christmas draws near, here is an unusual tale about the birth of Jesus.
Questions concerning the birth of Jesus – when, where and how – have already used up rivers of ink and the source of these rivers seems far from drying up.
Among the many issues being debated, apart from the date, there is also that of the presence or absence of shepherds in the countryside around the small city where Joseph and Mary found temporary shelter.
Shepherds out in the open, in the winter, in an area marked by unforgiving temperatures and snowfall in December.
A possible and striking solution to this question,– as well as being based on minute and ingenious research – is provided by Michele Loconsole, a scholar and president of the ENEC, the Europe-Near East Centre.
In his recent book, entitled Quando è nato Gesù? published by San Paolo, Loconsole claims that having examined certain Hebrew sources, it is clear that traditional religious Judaism provided for three types of flocks.
The first type includes animals with white fleece, with no marks or colour variations. This is the most valuable kind and not just from an aesthetic or trading point of view.
From a religious point of view they were considered “pure”, and so a day in the fields, they could go back to their stable, which was often – and this was even likelier in the cases of small inhabited centres – in a village or town.
A second type, included sheep whose wool was not completely white, but partly white and partly dark. These flocks were also allowed to return to the stable at nightfall. However, their shelter necessarily had to be located outside the inhabited area: outside the city walls in the case of a fortified town and outside the urban perimeter, or, at most, in outlying areas.
Then there is a third kind. These were flocks of sheep with dark, if not pitch black, wool. The author considers this type of flock to be more unusual than the other two kinds. According to Loconsole’s historical research, these sheep were treated in a special way.
They were seen as “impure” animals, so impure that they were not allowed to seek refuge after nightfall either in towns or even in outlying areas. Their existence, according to Jewish law, had to be permanently out in the open; and it would be fair to assume that this would be in places that were not far from their usual pasture.
Their treatment was necessarily shared by their shepherds. It was impossible then, as it is now, to abandon flocks to their fate, even if winter nights in the hills of the Middle East can be far from comfortable. Therefore, if this was the situation in Israel during Jesus’ time, the presence of shepherds near the cave and manger was not a mere invention (and why would it be?
The shepherds certainly did not add any glamour to the event) of the gospel according to Luke.
On the contrary. If everything said up until now is well-founded – and I do not think there is any reason to doubt this – we can safely assume that the shepherds brought these black sheep to greet the Messiah.
This is quite an appealing thought and in keeping with Jesus’ future mission. He said that he had come for the sick and not for the healthy and was happy to meet the “black sheep” of Jewish society of the time, tax collectors and prostitutes. Michele Loconsole suggests we colour the sheep in our nativity scenes black, given that it is very hard to find statuettes of sheep like those which, according to his research, heard our Saviour’s first cries in the market. We could even say that the presence of the shepherds as the first eyewitnesses of this event, fits in perfectly with this approach.
According to Loconsole, Judaism at the time, even considered shepherds to be impure, because of the kind of work they did. And we could add that this detail is one of the less “cosmetic” aspects that adds a touch of realism to the stories told in the gospels. Just like the women (who could not be heard in court and were even treated sceptically by the apostles) who witnessed the Resurrection. Shepherds were definitely not the most desirable “spokesmen” according to what was preached to Orthodox Jews in the 1st century A.D.
Among the many issues discussed – and debated – on Jesus’ birth, is the Deus Sol Invictus festival and the theory according to which, the 25th of December was a date chosen by Christians to overlap a pagan festival with the celebrations of the Lord’s nativity.
However, in his book, Michele Loconsole attempts to discredit this stereotype. “Having studied the sources of the time, it seems that exactly the opposite occurred. In actual fact, the pagan festival of Deus Sol Invictus was timed, or rather delayed, until the 25th of December, in an attempt to draw attention away from, or replace, the Christian festival celebrating the Lord’s Christmas.”
Before 354 A.D., during the reign of Licinius, the festival was celebrated in Rome on 19 December. We can also say that this extremely ancient astronomical festival was celebrated in Rome and elsewhere at different times of the year, often between 19 and 22 October.
The oldest source that discusses Christmas being on 25th December, is Hippolytus of Rome, who in 204, referred to the festival celebrated by Christians.
The cult of the sun god was introduced to Rome by the emperor Heliogabalus, between 218 and 222, and was made official in 274 by emperor Aurelian, who on 25 December of that year, consecrated a temple dedicated to the cult of Sol invictus.
And given that the feast of Sol Invictus was not celebrated by pagans only on 25 December and that this date was only given precedence over the others in the second half of the 4th century, “can’t we legitimately assume that the festival of Sol Invictus in the Roman empire’s calendar was the result of a conscious wish of the establishment to replace or at least draw attention away from the Christian festival of Christmas, which had been definitely celebrated in Rome on 25 December for at least the previous 70 years?”