Sunday, December 31, 2023

Before You Go: The Year In Review (Sort Of)

Is that a threat? Or a curse? 

Just to ruin everyone's evening, Twitter brings us the 21st century version of L’Histoire d’O, with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals. Ain’t capitalism grand? I’ll be apologizing for that well into the new year, but that’s as grotesque an ad as I’ve ever seen. And misery loves company. Right? Well, at least we know who they are. What’s on the internet is forever, so we can always get back to them. Speaking of which: (Trust me, it's worth it.)

It also makes this true for yet another year:
Same reason people try to argue the law with real lawyers on Twitter, I guess.
Posted by at No comments:

“A President Who Sells Nuclear Secrets…”

Not to mention raises some interesting questions: Interesting, indeed (Quasi-) legal Twitter will be all over the idea this is an “Easter egg” for the MAL case. When they finally get around to noticing this as an “Easter Egg.”

This is a lot more fun than that:
It’s not dispositive, but it does raise the question of which position is the real Trump position? The Courts won’t dispose of Trump in that statement, but it weakens his position almost to a nullity. Not that he had a strong position to begin with. That’s more likely the argument that wins the case. But anything you can do to undermine Trump’s position, is good for your side. (The Court may even take this as the “out” to sidestep the immunity question and simply toss Trump’s claims on their lack of merit. Either way is fine (Presidents do not earn a “Get Out Of Jail Free Card”), but the more deliberate way is to be preferred. It’s when the Supremes junk deliberation in favor of outcome (the modus operandi of the Roberts Court), that the judiciary goes to shit.)
Posted by at No comments:

First Sunday of Christmas 2023



 Isaiah 61:10-62:3 61:10 

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

 61:11 For as the earth brings forth its shoots, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up, so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring up before all the nations.

 62:1 For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until her vindication shines out like the dawn, and her salvation like a burning torch. 

 62:2 The nations shall see your vindication, and all the kings your glory; and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the LORD will give. 

 62:3 You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.

Psalm 148 

148:1 Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise him in the heights!

 148:2 Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his host! 

 148:3 Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars! 

 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! 

 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created. 

 148:6 He established them forever and ever; he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed. 

 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, 

 148:8 fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind fulfilling his command!

 148:9 Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars!  

148:10 Wild animals and all cattle, creeping things and flying birds! 

 148:11 Kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the earth!

 148:12 Young men and women alike, old and young together! 

 148:13 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven. 

 148:14 He has raised up a horn for his people, praise for all his faithful, for the people of Israel who are close to him. Praise the LORD! 

Galatians 4:4-7 

4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 

 4:5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 

 4:6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

 4:7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.


Luke 2:22-40 2:22 

When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 

 2:23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord"),  

2:24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." 

 2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him.

 2:26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah.

 2:27 Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him what was customary under the law,  

2:28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying,

 2:29 "Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; 

 2:30 for my eyes have seen your salvation,

 2:31 which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,

 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel."

 2:33 And the child's father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him. 

 2:34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, "This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed 

 2:35 so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed--and a sword will pierce your own soul too." 

 2:36 There was also a prophet, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 

 2:37 then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day. 

 2:38 At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

 2:39 When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 

 2:40 The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.


Looking backwards with Matthew we see the footprints of his Magi, and the reason we came to call them the “Three Kings.” Not exactly three kings from Orient are, but there’s a reason the church calls the 12th day of Xmas and the season between Xmas and Lent, Epiphany.

The nations shall see your vindication, and all the kings your glory; and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the LORD will give.

Not exactly three kings from Orient are, but there’s the reason the church calls the 12th day of Xmas and the season between Xmas and Lent, Epiphany. Well, and the Psalm:

148:11 Kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the earth!

 148:12 Young men and women alike, old and young together! 

 148:13 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven. 
 
Arguably Luke’s Gloria is in the opening of the Psalm, too. At least that’s why these verses are here for this Sunday.  I don’t think they have to be read this way, but I think Matthew and Luke had them in mind. And it useful to let them elucidate our reading of Matthew and Luke.

Matthew makes the Magi the highlight of his story, and the central figures who bring Herod into the story, prove the importance of this child. Why else is Herod so upset? Why else does the Holy Family flee to Egypt? And who is the pivot upon which Matthew’s nativity turns, but the Magi who reveal Israel’s vindication and are the first to acknowledge God’s glory in the birth of the Messiah?

Compared to Luke’s complex tale of the family of John the Baptist, the annunciation to Mary, journey to Bethlehem, the visit of the shepherds, and finally the presentation in the Temple, and all the songs between; Matthew’s story is succinct. The angel visits Joseph; the child is born; the Magi arrive…and things start happening.

Luke’s Roman census forces the family to travel while Mary is pregnant. In Matthew, Herod forces the family to move to Egypt. Political power responds to the birth of the Christchild, which you would expect in an age where political power was wielded from the blade of a sword.⚔️ If kings are going to praise you, other kings are going to be concerned.

But Matthew ends his nativity off stage, with the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt then returning to Nazareth when Herod dies. Mostly this last detail serves to explain why Jesus was a Nazarene born in Bethlehem. Luke ends his birth story with the Holy Family together for the last time: and despite all they’ve been through so far, they are amazed at what is being said about their son. He also ends it with two new characters , and a fourth song.

We’ve had the old couple, too old to have a child, find out they’re going to have a child; the young woman who has never known a man, but is herself pregnant; the shepherds who are first to get the message (Matthew’s Magi, who get the message from the stars, not angels). And now, just before we leave Jesus to “grow in wisdom,” we have the wisdom of Simeon and Anna to put a capstone on this story that is all about revelation. And the final reversal of Luke’s nativity, as two elderly people find their patience rewarded.

Funny how we never get away from epiphany in this story. Maybe that’s why it never wears out.

Simeon names the very theme of Luke’s gospel and Acts of the Apostles: 

 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.

His message to Mary is purely foreshadowing within Luke’s narrative, just like the three gifts of the Magi prefigure the crucifixion (emphasizing that the baby is human, and will be murdered by the state eventually). And Anna becomes the Christ’s first disciple, which is another theme of Luke’s gospel, which really began with the annunciation. That theme? The equality of women and men in the basileia tou theou. It’s Mary who sings of revolution and reversal, and Anna who explains to everyone what old Simeon is on about.

Funny how we never get away from epiphanies in this story.  How epiphanies come from reversals and revelations from songs and truths are told in metaphors. And how if such is the word of the Lord.

Thanks be to God.



Good words, but in which lectionary?


Revised Common Lectionary  




Posted by at 1 comment:

Saturday, December 30, 2023

When Reality Trumps (!) Parody

NYTimes Pitchbot. NOT the NYTimes Pitchbot. 


But authentically the NYTimes. So good, indeed.
Posted by at No comments:

Narratives And Stories

That is a good précis of Trump’s “strategy.” But Trump never had a snowball’s chance in hell of presenting that strategy in a courtroom. He will argue, outside the courtroom, that he’s being denied his First Amendment rights. But courts are not town halls or candidate debates. They are hermetically sealed to only consider facts relevant to the charges, which includes facts presented in defense. And whether or not there were errors in the 2020 Presidential election (but no other race on the ballot, anywhere in the country?), Trump did not use his lawful authority to investigate those alleged errors.

The only question in court is: did the things he did constitute crimes, as defined by law?

The DOJ’s Motion in Limine is a perfectly ordinary practice in criminal court. Smith is not “obliterating” Trump’s “strategy.” Smith is simply trying a criminal case. 

Trump is eating the pieces.

Maybe we should stop letting Trump frame this narrative?

I wanted to add I don’t know of any American politician convicted of crimes and and sent jail who ever said: “It’s a fair cop. I done it all.” No, they insist on their innocence, at least as long as they are in the public eye. I really don’t understand why Trump, as a former president, can’t go to jail for his crimes, even as he rails against the process. Holding Trump accountable to the law doesn’t undermine the Presidency, it upholds the rule of law and the concept of a government of law, not of persons.
So, no, I don’t think Biden will make Gerald Ford’s mistake (which, contrary to Ted Kennedy’s acceptance of it, only served to comfort the powerful and afflict the powerless. Two-tiered justice, indeed.) In the French manner, corrupt leadership needs to be punished so the state can thrive.

Let justice be done though the heavens fall. Because they won’t. Trump is not the anointed of God.
Despite whatever The Economist (!) might find.
Posted by at No comments:

"The Greatest Economy On Earth:" A Timely Reminder from Christmas Eve 2020

"Christmas a humbug, Uncle? You don't mean that, I am sure." "I do," said Scrooge. "Merry Christmas! What right have you to be merry? What reason have you to be merry? You're poor enough."

"Come, then," returned the nephew gaily. "What right have you to be dismal? What reason have you to be morose? You're rich enough."

Scrooge, having no better answer ready on the spur of the moment, said, "Bah!" again; and followed it up with "Humbug!"

"Don't be cross, uncle!" said the nephew. 

"What else can I be," returned the uncle, "when I live in such a world of fools as this? Merry Christmas! Out upon merry Christmas! What's Christmas-time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, and not an hour richer; a time for balancing your books, and having every item in 'em through a round dozen of months presented dead against you? If I could work my will," said Scrooge indignantly, "every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!"

I'm going to spend the day re-reading Dickens.  Something of a Christmas Eve tradition for me.  It's not like I have anything important to do.

In case you're wondering, this is what else Trump is doing today:
And apparently he's through playing golf. Good to know he's on top of the vital issues that concern most Americans. Especially the ones who are poor enough, after this hellacious year. Trump beat him to it?

 

Posted by at No comments:

Sixth Day of Christmas 2023


The threefold terror of love; a fallen flare
Through the hollow of an ear;
Wings beating about the room;
The terror of all terrors that I bore
The Heavens in my womb.

Had I not found content among the shows
Every common woman knows,
Chimney corner, garden walk,
Or rocky cistern where we tread the clothes
And gather all the talk?

What is this flesh I purchased with my pains,
This fallen star my milk sustains,
This love that makes my heart’s blood stop
Or strikes a sudden chill into my bones
And bids my hair stand up?

--W.B. Yeats

Friday, December 29, 2023

Poppycock

Because there is no crime of “insurrection.” There is, however, the crime of sedition, and several people have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. Which is “insurrection” by any other name.

There's a reason for that.  Insurrection leads to toppling the government.  It is the crime of sedition, or the Constitutional crime of treason.  Sedition is one of the oldest crimes in the U.S. Code.  And that's the reason the drafters of the 14th used the more general term, "insurrection," rather than the specific criminal term, "sedition."

The latter implies proof of a crime, which under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the first clause of the 14th, means there must be a trial to establish the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Civil court only requires a preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard used by the Colorado courts.

Application of clause 3 of the 14th Amendment is a civil, not criminal, matter.  No one has to be charged with a crime, or proven guilty of it, in order to put clause three into effect.  Similarly, to challenge ballot access for a Presidential nominee takes only a civil suit and proof in civil court that the defendant is not a natural born citizen, or hasn't lived in the U.S. for 14 years prior to filing, or is not 35 or older.

What Lee is bringing up isn't even a challenging legal argument.  It's, at best, a political one.  But ballot access and eligibility is determined by law, not by politics.

And Mike Luttig is hardly a “liberal.”  The rest of Lee's tweet is just as much poppycock as that.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Let’s You And Him Fight

Per the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Lindsey needs to direct his comments to his fellow Senators. They are (again) peculiarly situated to determine this matter.

But that would make him responsible for what comes next. If Biden follows Lindsey’s advice, Biden alone is responsible for what happens. Which would suit Lindsey just fine.
Posted by at No comments:

There Are No "Free Speech" Rights In A Courtroom

Because the courtroom is not a public forum.  Likewise, you don't have the right as a spectator in the House or Senate, or even a witness at a hearing, to carry on as you please. Those places are not public fora, either. If you disrespect the proceedings, you will be escorted out.  EOD.

And trials are governed by, among other things, rules of evidence.  The DOJ has submitted, in a timely manner, a "Motion in Limine," meant to line out or "eliminate" certain evidence from being introduced at trial because such evidence violates the Federal Rules of Evidence, or on other grounds.  Per emptywheel, here's the list:

Altogether, the filing asks Judge Chutkan to exclude the following:

  1. Claims of selective and vindictive prosecution that will be settled when Chutkan rules on Trump’s motion to dismiss on the same topic
  2. Claims of investigative misconduct based on Carol Leonnig’s misleading article about the investigation
  3. Topics — such as claims that the First Amendment covers his alleged fraud — that are matters of law
  4. The consequences Trump might face, including electoral, if the jury convicts
  5. Claims that law enforcement did not adequately prepare for January 6
  6. Claims that January 6 was a FedSurrection incited by undercover feds
  7. Claims that the disinformation of foreigners, and not Trump’s own lies, mobilized January 6
  8. Discussions of revisions to the Electoral College Act passed to prevent Trump from criming (in this particular way) again
  9. Opinions from others about Trump’s state of mind
  10. Attempts to elicit witnesses to invoke privileges — such as attorney-client or Speech and Debate
As ew points out, number 9 is the most interesting one; although it's also the one I most expected to see, as Trump's defense is, in large part, based on his arguments as to "intent."  Which is an issue in criminal trials, but it is often proven by circumstantial evidence, since the defendant cannot be forced to testify against himself by being called as a witness by the prosecution.  So I don't think it's the issue Trump wants it to be, inside our outside the court of law.

You'll see the First Amendment cited there, and lined out because it raises questions of law.  This is because juries are finders of fact.  Issues of fact are those upon which reasonable minds can differ, such as whether or not there was violence on J6 at the Capitol.  What I consider a shouting match, you might consider "violence."  It's a crude example, but that's sometimes how issues (or questions) of fact emerge in trials.  The basic question to the jury will be:  Did Donald Trump do "X",' where "X" is the element of a particular crime he's been charged with.  Most crimes have several elements, and...well, that's where we get off into the weeds.  Important to the jury; but not right now, to us.  Mostly because we don't know what evidence will be presented.  That's what a Motion in Limine is for, in fact; to get a judicial ruling on what evidence can be admitted before the trial starts, so every question and witness aren't objected to in front of the jury, making a coherent case (by either side) impossible to present.

Back to matters of law (sorry!).  Issues of law are, by law, questions upon which reasonable minds will not differ.  You may say:  "What about appellate courts?"  Mostly, appellate courts differ on what law should have been applied, or what evidence should (or should not) have been admitted.  So, yes, reasonable minds do differ on questions of law.  But it sounds terribly elitist (though much closer to true) to say "reasonable educated legal minds will decide those issues."  Jurors determine facts; judges determine law, is the most honest and clear way to put it.

And so to the rules of evidence. Trump wants to explain why he did what he did. But unless those explanations are legal defenses (and declaring yourself a victim doesn’t justify you breaking the law), they are irrelevant in court. The facts are presented to the jury; facts by the prosecution, and facts by the defense. But neither side can present facts merely meant to inflame the jury, like how many lies Trump told in his four year term as President. That he lied can be proven; that his lies are relevant to government’s case, cannot. It may convince the jury he’s a liar; it won’t establish his guilt for the crimes charged.

Trump doesn’t want to establish his innocence. Trump wants to squirt squid ink.

Whether or not the First Amendment applies is clearly a question of law.  Trump's lawyers can present briefs supporting their position, but the juries don't want to read them and wouldn't, frankly, understand them, anymore than I understand the mathematics behind basic physics.  So the question of whether or not Trump's actions are protected by the First Amendment (a separate question from whether or not he has a First Amendment right to present whatever evidence he damn well pleases) is one for Tanya Chutkan to decide, and for the appellate courts to review.  I say that because questions of fact are not for the appellate court to review (although the Supreme Court recently has been known to invent new facts for support of its conclusions of law).  Once the facts are set by the jury, they cannot be challenged in another court.  If a case is reversed and set for new trial, it's because the law was not followed, not because the jury didn't reach the right factual conclusions.

That's the theory, anyway.

So no one, not even the "frontrunner in his party's primaries for the Presidential nomination," can claim a First Amendment right to commit crimes and present that as a factual defense to a jury; because it isn't a factual defense.  And all juries are supposed to hear is the evidence allowed by law and procedure to be considered in rendering a verdict.  The application of the First Amendment as a defense to Trump's actions is a question for the court, rather like the question of his immunity from prosecution.  If the Court agrees with Trump's claims, it's a get out of jail free card; whether those claims are based on his idea of presidential immunity, or of how the First Amendment allows him to commit crimes (yeah, I'm not objective about this).  Either way, no jury need be involved.

But until that happens, we have to assume a jury will be involved, and so we have to determine (well, the judge has to determine.  This is not an issue subject to plebiscite) what evidence is permitted to be placed before the jury.  And evidence that is merely a legal argument, is not evidence.

Does Trump have a First Amendment right to spout conspiracy theories and tell the jury (falsely) that Nancy Pelosi could have called the National Guard that day, because he (as POTUS) was not responsible for activating them?  No. Again, part of that is a question of law (who had the authority to call out the NG?), and part is a question of fact (what did Trump do, or not do?).  Basically, 4-8 would be evidence that is irrelevant to the charges and don't raise a defense so much as squirt a lot of squid ink into the waters of the jury trial.

You can argue the facts; you can argue the law; you can even pound on the table.  If you remember the OJ murder trial, there was a lot of table pounding being done by Johnny Cochran that made the evening news.  But there wasn't much squid ink.  Trump wants to darken the courtroom so he can slip out under cover of that darkness.  This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and everything to do with not letting him off the legal hook by running more of his now all-too-familiar cons.  His lawyers aren't allowed to con the jury, as a matter of legal ethics and law.  Trump has no constitutional authority to empower them to do it on his behalf.

As ew says, no. 9 is the tricky one; but not, I think, for the reasons she thinks.  It's where the action in court is going to be, where the objections from DOJ are going to come, however Chutkan rules (and she's very likely to grant this one).  Trump's lawyers have to introduce "reasonable doubt" (which differs from squid ink because it is, ultimately, reasonable).  They will try to do that despite any pre-trial order limiting what they can present in defense, even if the Court deems that defense irrelevant.  The prosecution can't appeal a verdict of "Not Guilty."  Introducing reasonable doubt where ever you can is kind of the job of the defense attorney.

10, by the way, is back to legal issues v. fact issues.  Privileges are matters of law, not fact.  The court decides if they apply, just as the jury decides what weight to give the testimony of witnesses. Also not a free speech issue. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. Including courtroom time.
Posted by at No comments:

“An Obscure Constitutional Amendment”

Jason Chaffetz explains it all away: He never took it to court; but he sure drove the birther conspiracy theory until the wheels came off.

Somewhere in his future, a jury of Trump’s peers will decide whether or not Trump did use dirty tricks, a/k/a crimes. And the hits just keep on coming. Chaffetz explains away the Constitution, too. Trump is the one spending money in pointless legal disputes and arguments.

Besides, Trump never did do nothin’!
Those seeking access to abortion would like a word. Damn that pesky Constitution! New definition of an insurrection: unless trained military troops are involved and acting under orders, it doesn’t count! Seems to me the GOP is doing that all by itself. Is the problem that the Democrats and the courts see that, too?
Yes, but was the day itself carried out in an organized manner? Because otherwise it was just a mob, and a mob can’t be an insurrection!  Cenk Uygur wanted to be on the Democratic primary ballot in Arkansas as a presidential candidate. But he was born in Turkey. Which is completely different because everybody’s heard of Donald Trump. And besides, Uygur is a Democrat.

It’s perfectly fair when Republicans do it to Democrats.

Never fear, the NYT rides to the rescue:
I’ll retire to Bedlam.
Posted by at No comments:

"The Cultivation of Christmas Trees": Fourth Day of Christmas 2023


There are several attitudes towards Christmas,
Some of which we may disregard:
The social, the torpid, the patently commercial,
The rowdy (the pubs being open till midnight),
And the childish - which is not that of the child
For whom the candle is a star, and the gilded angel
Spreading its wings at the summit of the tree
Is not only a decoration, but an angel.


The child wonders at the Christmas Tree:
Let him continue in the spirit of wonder
At the Feast as an event not accepted as a pretext;
So that the glittering rapture, the amazement
Of the first-remembered Christmas Tree,
So that the surprises, delight in new possessions
(Each one with its peculiar and exciting smell),
The expectation of the goose or turkey
And the expected awe on its appearance,



So that the reverence and the gaiety
May not be forgotten in later experience,
In the bored habituation, the fatigue, the tedium,
The awareness of death, the consciousness of failure,
Or in the piety of the convert
Which may be tainted with a self-conceit
Displeasing to God and disrespectful to children
(And here I remember also with gratitude
St.Lucy, her carol, and her crown of fire):



So that before the end, the eightieth Christmas
(By "eightieth" meaning whichever is last)
The accumulated memories of annual emotion
May be concentrated into a great joy
Which shall be also a great fear, as on the occasion
When fear came upon every soul:
Because the beginning shall remind us of the end
And the first coming of the second coming.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 28, 2023

I Grew Up Watching Kubrick At The Drive-In

Which makes me a contemporary of Methuselah. But still younger than Biden. Or Trump.

(Saw “2001,” for the second (third?) time, at a drive-in. Thought it was the last chance to see it on a large screen. Years later I saw four James Bond movies in one sitting at a drive-in. And later, four Woody Allen movies at, I think, the same drive-in. Dem was de days.)
Posted by at No comments:

When It’s Time To Stop Talking

Really, Nikki: just stop talking. So now I guess we can bring this back up: Her middle name is “Nikki.” But Obama’s middle name is “Hussein,” so he had no choice but to run as a Democrat. Nikki didn’t really change her name; she just tries not to use it.

It’s South Carolina, as I say.
That would be a reason to pursue repeal, wouldn’t it?
Posted by at No comments:

Fourth Day of Christmas 2023: The Infancy Gospels


What follows is not scholarship nor in any sense textual or historical analysis.  At best it's literary criticism, the area I'm most trained in when it comes to written material like the infancy narratives.  It's a seasonal bug of mine to write about this stuff.  The bulk of this is an old post somewhat reworked, by which I mean I've removed the original introduction, and gotten straight to the point:  the variety of infancy narratives in Christian history.

Not in Christianity, because most of these are unknown outside of seminaries and scholars.  That may seem to make it "secret" knowledge, or even suppressed knowledge: but it's nothing of the sort.  You can find this stuff on the internet; or in books like Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, a very mainstream Catholic (Brown was a priest) study; lots of places, really.  It isn't "obscure", it's just not widely known.  "Obscure" implies "hidden."  But these narratives are only hidden from people either not interested in them, or afraid of them.

Let's start with a bit of history, just to provide context:

The Gospel of Mark is dated to around 70 C.E., and contains no mention of a nativity at all. Neither does The Gospel of John, which clocks in between 100 and 120 C.E. 

The only story from the life of Jesus of Nazareth in Paul's letters is the reference to the eucharisto in Corinthians. Otherwise, Paul preaches "Christ crucified," which for Paul clearly is what made Jesus of Nazareth "Messiah" Or Christos. Both terms better translate as “Anointed One.” It also which means the "last supper" for Paul is a memorial meal; the metaphysics of it came much later. Although it raises the interesting question, again: what do the words of institution in Corinthians mean? But that is another question, isn’t it?)

Matthew and Luke both have widely divergent nativity stories, which cannot be reconciled. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, and the wise men come when Jesus is 2 or younger (because that's the age of the innocents slaughtered by Herod). The family flees to Egypt (recaptiulating Israel's history; in with Joseph, out with Moses), and comes back to settle in Nazareth. 

In Luke, they live in Nazareth and go to Bethlehem for the census (for which there is no other record than in Luke's tale).

By John's gospel, metaphysics has taken over, and Jesus not only predates Creation, but is the shaping force of Creation (the logos of Greek philosophy is thus reconciled with the Creator of Hebraic belief). Birth is irrelevant to the Word, which exists, with God, prior to the beginning. 

What does this mean? 

Well, that the gospels are not history texts in the way the Greeks understood them, or even as we, after them, do.* They are, in seminary language, confessional documents. They confess a belief in the God of Abraham and Jesus, based on an experience that the communities which created these documents felt could best be expressed in this way. I learned all this in seminary, and yet I still sing "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" every December, still read Luke 2 in the King James Version every Christmas Eve, still believe in the songs of Mary and Zechariah and Simeon and the angels, and even in the dreams of Joseph. I know what it all means, and yet is still means something to me. I can exegete the Magnificat and the gifts of the Magi and even the journeys of the holy family and the visitation of shepherds.

But they still have their confessional meanings, too.

To that I would add this postscript:  the fear some modern theologians have is that this is a rational age and Christianity is not "rational" enough for the age ( the “problem” with Christianity is usually described as being too "metaphysical."  I'll accept that classical metaphysics is almost as dead as logical positivism (which is really well and truly dead, despite what Carnap's disciples say), but what is the material and physical explanation of love?  If you can answer that without an absurdly reductio argument, I'd be interested.  A professor told me once he read that Emmanuel Levinas, the philosopher of phenomenology, once witnessed a stranger rescue a young girl on a busy street from the traffic and an oncoming car.  Why, Levinas wondered, would this happen?  Levinas was no logical positivist or Anglo-American materialist; he worked on his own answers.  But it's a profoundly simple question with no simple answer. So while I don't defend classical metaphysics, I don't toss out the baby with the bathwater.  Not everything, at all, is material; or can be understood as such.  Some things are "human nature," or just the "human psyche," and what is more metaphysical than that?

But more importantly, people don't ratiocinate about matters religious (or miraculous, or absolutely contrary to human experience, like a "virgin birth") nearly so much as some theologians (and non-theologians), imagine they do.  Kierkegaard wrote (mockingly) of the young man who do objectively observed his own life he awoke one day to find he’d reasoned himself out of existence. No one, as he pointed out, stands apart from their own existence, nor can we explain it objectively. The same is true of religion.

Christianity won't die because people can't think about a virgin birth or a triune but monotheistic god.  I, too, thought they should think more about such matters; they taught me otherwise.  Pastors, even those with the briefest of careers, see the people in the church a bit differently. Close contact with reality will do that to you. I just had a note from a member of my first church , the one I pastored as a student. Almost thirty years on, he remembers my first sermon there because, he says, I painted a picture of bluebonnets. And all I remember of those sermons was struggling to make my abstruse theological ideas understandable in a 15 minute monologue. 

The point I’m trying to make is that Christianity is not nearly so fragile as "outsiders" believe; and to introduce the idea the infancy narratives of Jesus aren't so singular and simple as, especially at this time of year, we often think.  The following nativity gospels all post-date the canonical gospels; but they are interesting takes on the birth, and even childhood, of Jesus the Christ.  What interests me are not the similarities, but the variations, and the way the details change, and then get cemented into place.

Arabic infancy gospel:

1. We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

2. In the three hundred and ninth year of the era of Alexander, Augustus put forth an edict, that every man should be enrolled in his native place. Joseph therefore arose, and taking Mary his spouse, went away to Jerusalem, and came to Bethlehem, to be enrolled along with his family in his native city. And having come to a cave, Mary told Joseph that the time of the birth was at hand, and that she could not go into the city; but, said she, let us go into this cave. This took place at sunset. And Joseph went out in haste to go for a woman to be near her. When, therefore, he was busy about that, he saw an Hebrew old woman belonging to Jerusalem, and said: Come hither, my good woman, and go into this cave, in which there is a woman near her time.

3. Wherefore, after sunset, the old woman, and Joseph with her, came to the cave, and they both went in. And, behold, it was filled with lights more beautiful than the gleaming of lamps and candles, and more splendid than the light of the sun. The child, enwrapped in swaddling clothes, was sucking the breast of the Lady Mary His mother, being placed in a stall. And when both were wondering at this light, the old woman asks the Lady Mary: Are you the mother of this Child? And when the Lady Mary gave her assent, she says: You are not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women. The old woman replied: My mistress, I came to get payment; I have been for a long time affected with palsy. Our mistress the Lady Mary said to her: Place your hands upon the child. And the old woman did so, and was immediately cured. Then she went forth, saying: Henceforth I will be the attendant and servant of this child all the days of my life.

4. Then came shepherds; and when they had lighted a fire, and were rejoicing greatly, there appeared to them the hosts of heaven praising and celebrating God Most High. And while the shepherds were doing the same, the cave was at that time made like a temple of the upper world, since both heavenly and earthly voices glorified and magnified God on account of the birth of the Lord Christ. And when that old Hebrew woman saw the manifestation of those miracles, she thanked God, saying: I give You thanks, O God, the God of Israel, because my eyes have seen the birth of the Saviour of the world.

....

7. And it came to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem of Judæa, in the time of King Herod, behold, magi came from the east to Jerusalem, as Zeraduscht had predicted; and there were with them gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And they adored Him, and presented to Him their gifts. Then the Lady Mary took one of the swaddling-bands, and, on account of the smallness of her means, gave it to them; and they received it from her with the greatest marks of honour. And in the same hour there appeared to them an angel in the form of that star which had before guided them on their journey; and they went away, following the guidance of its light, until they arrived in their own country.

8. And their kings and chief men came together to them, asking what they had seen or done, how they had gone and come back, what they had brought with them. And they showed them that swathing-cloth which the Lady Mary had given them. Wherefore they celebrated a feast, and, according to their custom, lighted a fire and worshipped it, and threw that swathing-cloth into it; and the fire laid hold of it, and enveloped it. And when the fire had gone out, they took out the swathing-cloth exactly as it had been before, just as if the fire had not touched it. Wherefore they began to kiss it, and to put it on their heads and their eyes, saying: This verily is the truth without doubt. Assuredly it is a great thing that the fire was not able to burn or destroy it. Then they took it, and with the greatest honour laid it up among their treasures.
I found this at New Advent.  It goes on to describe Jesus' early life, where he performs various miracles, including making a dead boy speak and tell who pushed the dead boy from the roof (which is why he's dead; all the other boys accuse Jesus).  I mention this only because the story shows elements both from Matthew's infancy narrative, and from Luke's.  Luke is the only gospel that gives us a glimpse of Jesus as a young boy (in the Temple, teaching the elders).  The Arabic infancy gospel expands on those stories, echoing Luke to lend these stories authenticity.  It even echoes Luke’s Nunc Dimmitus. This should not be a surprise. Even today we have a "canon" which fictional characters must follow, be the character James Bond or Dr. Who or just in the comic books. The non-canonical part is the introduction of a cave as the birthplace. But that becomes “canonical” in the other nativity stories.

That's the other interesting bit, for our purposes, in this nativity story: the reference to a cave as the birthplace of the Christ child.  I can't tell you where this idea comes from, but it persists in the narratives that follow, which is a curious thing in itself.
 
So close in time we can’t say which came first, the Infancy Gospel of James (a/k/a Protevangelium of James) also betrays familiarity with the canonical gospel accounts. But it does some interesting things with point of view, while shifting the location of the birth from Bethlehem to the desert. Like Matthew’s version, it centers on Joseph, not Mary. It even tries to combine the two: there is a census, but Joseph is ashamed of his pregnant wife. And in that desert there is again a cave.

Chapter 17

(1) Then, there was an order from the Emperor Augustus to register how many people were in Bethlehem of Judea. (2) And Joseph said, "I will register my sons. But this child? What will I do about him? How will I register him? (3) And my wife? Oh, I am ashamed. Should I register her as my daughter? The children of Israel know that she is not my daughter. (4) This day, I will do as the Lord wants."

(5) And he saddled his donkey and sat her on it and his son led and Samuel followed. (6) And they arrived at the third mile and Joseph turned and saw that she was sad. (7) And he said to himself, "Perhaps the child within her is troubling her." (8) And again Joseph turned around and saw her laughing and said to her, "Mary, what is with you? First your face appears happy and then sad?"

(9) And she said, "Joseph, it is because I see two people with my eyes, one crying and being afflicted, one rejoicing and being extremely happy."

(10) When they came to the middle of the journey, Mary said to him, "Joseph, take me off the donkey, the child pushing from within me to let him come out."

(11) So he took her off the donkey and said to her, "Where will I take you and shelter you in your awkwardness? This area is a desert."

Chapter 18

(1) And he found a cave and led her there and stationed his sons to watch her, (2) while he went to a find a Hebrew midwife in the land of Bethlehem.

(3) Then, Joseph wandered, but he did not wander. (4) And I looked up to the peak of the sky and saw it standing still and I looked up into the air. With utter astonishment I saw it, even the birds of the sky were not moving. (5) And I looked at the ground and saw a bowl lying there and workers reclining. And their hands were in the bowl. (6) And chewing, they were not chewing. And picking food up, they were not picking it up. And putting food in their mouths, they were not putting it in their mouths. (7) Rather, all their faces were looking up.

(8) And I saw sheep being driven, but the sheep were standing still. (9) And the shepherd lifted up his hand to strike them, but his hand remained above them. (10) And I saw the rushing current of the river and I saw goats and their mouths resting in the water, but they were not drinking. (11) And suddenly everything was replaced by the ordinary course of events.

....

Chapter 20

(1) And the midwife went in and said, "Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place."

(2) When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself. And Salome inserted her finger into her body. (3) And Salome cried out and said, "Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed in fire."

(5) And Salome dropped to her knees before the Lord, saying, "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, (6) do not expose me to the children of Israel, but give me back to the poor. (7) For you know, Lord, that I have performed service and received my wage from you."

(8) Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying to her, "Salome, Salome, the Lord of all has heard your entreaty. (9) Stretch out your hand to the child and lift him up and he will be salvation and joy for you."

(10) And Salome went to the child and lifted him up, saying, "I worship him because he has been born a king to Israel." (11) And at once Salome was healed and left the cave justified.

(12) Suddenly, there was a voice saying, "Salome, Salome, do not proclaim what a miracle you have seen until the child comes to Jerusalem."
You’ll find some similarities there, and in the section from the Apocalypse to John (below), to the Ted Hughes poem “Minstrel’s Song.” Im pretty sure Hughes knew the scriptural passage; I can’t say he also knew the Protevangelium. But describing dreams in the voice of the character is an old narrative technique, and it’s interesting how effective it is in both works.

There are also characters here, and a conversation between Joseph and Mary. This version probably gave license and material for the mystery plays in medieval England, which added characters to the nativity and made the shepherds comic figures. We’ve continued this, too: Amahl and the night visitors; La Befana, in Italy; the 3 Magi who became men if different ethnicities (the original DEI?). Even the little drummer 🥁 boy.

As I mentioned, the cave reference is not limited to this gospel. Several retellings of the nativity story from the medieval era on often place the birth of Christ in a cave.  I have memories of nativity scenes set in a grotto rather than a barn or a stall.  I think there were even sets for household use sold with a cave as the backdrop, rather than a stable.  (In fact I know of one from a pottery company in Louisville, Kentucky.) We've lost the source of that echo, but we still hear the echo.  The earliest reference seems to be from Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, a very early work of Christian apologetics:

"Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet: 'And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people.' Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem. And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Judah. But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you," I continued, "what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage." Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "[Chapter 78]
A mix, again, of Luke and Matthew, but with the birth relocated to a cave. A cave with a feeding trough. But now the Magi come from Arabia, which is interesting specificity. It was popular once to connect Christianity and Mithraism. It seems that supposed connection is quite old (this dialogue is an apologetic), which may explain the origins of the cave in the nativity stories.

It’s also interesting how the Matthean nativity dominates in these versions. Joseph is prominent, Mary much less so; there are references to Egypt, if not the flight there; and the Magi. Except for them, we tend to favor Luke’s version now. Tastes change.

 Origen also puts the birth in a cave, and notes the location is still known, which he offers as proof of the veracity of the story.

CHAP. LI.

Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's birth--that the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem--in the following manner: "And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the thousands of Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me who is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave out that they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth from Bethlehem to be the leader of the people. With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians. Moreover, I am of opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of the people, on account of the distinctness and clearness of this prophecy, taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born. And this opinion had prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for which reason it is related that Herod, on inquiring at the chief priests and scribes of the people, heard from them that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, "whence David was." It is stated also in the Gospel according to John, that the Jews declared that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, "whence David was." But after our Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."
No Mithra this time, but a cave and a great deal more interest in establishing authorities in order to establish the authority and veracity of the infancy narrative. A very Matthean take, in other words. But there is one other nativity story in the canon, one that captures not what happened, but what it meant. From the Revelation to John:

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.

Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.

She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back,

but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.

Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."

When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.

But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.

The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.

But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

It took its position on the sand of the sea.

John’s vision and version have the virtue of capturing the truly revolutionary, truly apocalyptic (in terms of revelation) aspect of the nativity stories. Rather like a modern day CGI laden movie, he makes vivid and visual what the other stories merely suggest. Sometimes subtlety is nice; but sometimes, you want the spectacle.

What do all these versions tell us?  That we've been creating an infancy narrative to suit our purposes almost since the original birth. Our current narrative is largely a blend of Luke and Matthew, heavy on the Luke:  magi and shepherds coming to a manger, angels and a star shining down over the holy family and the first worshippers as they mingle with animals and offer rich gifts to the baby.  I should point out Luke’s version provided us with the idea of Xmas songs, and the opportunity to add characters, via the Shepherds plays of medieval England (at least). The favoritism shifted early as the story moved away from apologetics to people the people in the nave (pews didn’t come along for centuries) could identify with. 

We never lost characters, of course. Sometimes we even name the magi, but always we think there were three of them (Matthew only identifies three gifts.  We've lost the significance of those, though Matthew couldn't be any clearer about it.)  Are we closer, or further away, from the truth, then? 

That depends on what you mean by "truth."  Is the actual birthdate and birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth that important?  Should we clean up our manger oriented nativities; remove the camels and the rich visitors and their gifts, maybe even put the whole thing inside a 1st century Palestine peasant's dwelling, rather than some imagined European-style stall, complete with hay and oak beams? Should we erase the "innkeeper" from all the Christmas pageants, because there was no such industry in first century Bethlehem?  Call an immediate halt to all those Las Posadas observations? And shouldn't we make all the characters at the manger scenes look Middle Eastern?

Or is that really what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown?


*Even the Greek histories aren’t history as we think of it. The historian Josephus wrote of the Roman assault on Jerusalem that the blood in the streets came up to the horses’ knees. Everyone pretty much understands that as his attempt to convey the brutality and horror of the attack,  History and literature often overlap like that.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)