A Season's Greetings
It is not a simple matter to be a Jew in America this time of year. Not in Jerusalem either, a few miles from Bethlehem. Christmas, as John Updike writes, is Christianity "at its sweetest." Many have written, some with an air of sweet resignation, about the yearning Jews feel as the days darken: to share in the melodies, the hearth, the love of the child.
It was only a matter of time--was it not?--that we would start finding ways to be absorbed into the spirit of the moment. So we exchange presents, greet the "season," tease out of the ancient Chanukah story our own celebration of light and grace--God bless, eight days, not just one! And we leave behind, in mildly embarrassed obscurity, the tale of Maccabean guerrilla war against Greek occupiers around 165 BC--a mythical victory that had been so much solace for medieval rabbis, forced into ghettos, and more recently, for outnumbered Zionists.
But when you give a second thought to the Chanukah behind the candles, you do feel at odds with the spirit of the time, and not really because the ancient heroics of Judeans seem out of step with Pickwickian fellowship. The fact is, Chanukah is Judaism at its gravest: a radical attack on all forms of idol-worship, including the worship of the love of the child.
When the Maccabees reconsecrated the ancient Temple (Chanukah means "reconsecration") they emptied it of all images--in this case, the Hellenistic statues celebrating the "gods," who personified familiar human virtues--warriors for justice, masters of the natural world, protecting fathers, fecund mothers. There may well have been images of fleshy, innocent children, too.
No wonder, as the Book of Maccabees reveals, a great many residents of ancient Jerusalem loved these statues. One could have had a "season" with them. Nevertheless, Maccabean zealots determined to make a terribly abstract point, even to kill and be killed for it: God is nameless, God is fugitive, God is silent. A kind of Jewish Taliban. True, the Maccabees were defending the God of Torah and Law. But what is law if not an expression of the silenced God?
And so Christmas is for love, Chanukah for awe. While Christmas brings God down to earth, Chanukah dispatches earthly versions of God to the rubble pile. They need God to feel immanent, nearly material like a Greek deity, while we need God to be thought ineffable and mysterious.
Or do they? And do we?
The disparity here is one of timing, I think, not of spiritual insight. Actually, both religious traditions affirm both spontaneous needs. And how could they not? Our common bible says we are created in God's image. But can we hope to create, like that God, outside the realm of sensuous experience? That's why we say things like, God is like a king, or a teacher, or a way. The danger, people as different as Maimonides and Pascal wrote, comes when we forget how our perceptions are, in a way, also our own creations. We are stuck with mystery and (hence,) also with metaphor.
Nor do Christianity or Judaism have a monopoly on either. Later on, when spring comes, it is Christians who cope with the awful mystery of living on an earth in which the divine is gone, indeed, has been banished by human willfulness; while Jews celebrate a God who is like "an outstretched arm" come down to earth to take our ancestors out of Egypt. Then, it is their turn to contend with the disquieting precondition of freedom, namely, loneliness, while we feel gratitude for the power that underlies, not freedom, but surrender, the relief of being cared for.
Even the Judeans at the time of the Maccabean revolt could not be immune. The culminating last book of Maccabees is not at all about national liberation--it is certainly not about a miracle of burning oil--but is a painstaking disquisition on how Jewish law establishes the supremacy of reason over appetite. A (somewhat self-satisfied) Jewish riff on a Greek problem. And who if not Greeks made holidays of military victories? It seems the world of law and idol breaking needed something of the Greeks' materialism.
There is something sublime about this tension, I think. Both Jews and Christians struggle with it: We simply choose different times of the year to try to feel one or another side of it. Then again, nobody can really feel just one side at a time--at least, not for long.
That is precisely why so many grown-up Jews envy Christians their capacity to re-enter the mental atmosphere of children as Christmas approaches--why they get down on the floor and play dreidel with children, why they sing that "big miracles" (like children) can happen.
And that is why, after all, so many Christians report feeling despondent on Christmas Day, because they know in their bones that they have been carried away by an unreasonable--dare we say, childish?--notion. They feel the embrace. Intuitively, they also want to acknowledge that they are on their own.
The point is, maybe we can help each other, Jews and Christians, during this time of year. Maybe we have something to teach each other. God is a mystery, yet we are blessed. Break the idols. Hear the Good News.
(Republished from last year's post on www.bernardavishai.com)















I find myself wanting to say-not with any intention of irony-Merry Christmas Mr. Avishai
December 18, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems hard to combine combine the Christmas celebration with any kind of iconoclasm or meditation on the mysterious absence of God, since Christmas is a celebration of The Incarnation, which represents the nearness of heaven to earth, and the actual, physical presence of God on earth as a man.
December 18, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, you're on the wrong track.
The celebration of Christmas was the appropriation of anicent "pagan" celebrations by the Roman Catholic church, cynically introduced in order to compete with those popular traditions. They finally settled on appropriating the northern winter solstice.
It is not at all central to Christian theology, Easter is.
The cult of child associated with Christmas that Avishai refers is an interesting point and is an even later development to the introduction of the celebration.
Avishai is onto something interesting here by comparing the humanist/enlightenment side of the Hellenist period with a sort of Taliban-like reaction from the Maccabees. If one scans this relatively short roundup of earlier Hellenist history for a refresher, one can easily see what he is getting at. It is about reform of religion to more humanism/naturalism vs. the anti-humanist kind. One starts to see the celebration of Christmas as the "pander" to pagan humanist values that it was.
December 18, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. For those unaware, this synopsis of the changes in Hellenistic art is decent.
Also, it can be easily argued that the Madonna is Isis, and has been, many times...see Joseph Campbell for more if you are interested in concordance to the point of excess...
And that whole "incarnation" thing? Hotly contested by many Christians over many centuries, to say the least.
December 18, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly, most of what we associate with the celebration of Christmas represents a fusion of the Christian Feast of the Nativity with traditions drawn from a variety of solstice festivals. These fusions seem especially popular in the dark, wintry north: Germany, England and Scandinavia. My wife is from Puerto Rico, where Christmas plays a distinct second fiddle to the Feast of the Epiphany.
But to the extent that Christmas is celebrated as a Christian holiday by practicing Christians, it has little to do, either in its core Christian meaning or its many supplementary pagan accretions, with either the breaking of idols and icons or the mystery of the Deus Absconditus. That sort of austere puritanism is quite contrary to the spirit of the holiday. In fact, whenever puritanism has been ascendant in Christian communities, it has very frequently given rise to outright hostility to the celebration of Christmas. So I don't see that there is much ground for a transformation of Christmas into an expression of iconoclastic, puritanical, Maccabeean image-busting and sense-denying.
For Christians, the nativity of Jesus represents the birth of God into the world; and for the orthodox, the birth of God in literally human, corporeal form. The "mystery" Christmas contemplates is thus the mystery of incarnation, not the mystery of God's ineffability, absence, silence or otherness. Much of the same spirit infuses the pagan components, which derive from celebrations of the annual rebirth of the sun with its warm physical presence.
Obviously, there are important puritanical and contemplative traditions in Christianity and other monotheistic religions that emphasize the otherness, immateriality, incorporeality, incomprehensibility and ineffability of God. But these traditions run in the opposite direction from the pagan and Christian traditions that celebrate the physical presence and embodiment of the divine. The former seek God in darkness, oblivion and the mortification senses; the latter tradition finds God in light, humanity and the radiant physical world.
December 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I don't see that there is much ground for a transformation of Christmas into an expression of iconoclastic, puritanical, Maccabeean image-busting and sense-denying.
I do agree that there isn't "much". Matter of fact, it would behoove Mr. Avishai to remember that all Christians didn't make a big deal of it until the 19th century when the celebration as we know was basically invented. Still, I think there is some there there. Because there are a hell of a lot of Madonna-and-child's coming out of the middle ages and beyond, back before Christmas was a celebration of any account, one of the greatest pop culture hits of all times.
The way I read Avishai's essay is simply that his thoughts on the differences between the basic background iconography of each celebration gave him pause to go on to other thoughts. Like he said in a comment, to ponder why certain celebrations take root and become popular and others don't. The holiday of western civilization called Christmas or whatever you want to call it does has some things in it to ponder, and some roots that are quite humanist and tender. Ain't no surprise that Judaism felt the need for something to compete. And I think Avishai might be pondering why what they chose was chosen, and to get people to think on that.
December 18, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Avishai:
It's important to remember that much of the "Christian" celebration of Christmas comes from druidic festivals to mark the Winter Solstice.
The idea of lighting candles and feasting on rich food to defy the dark and infertile winter months is a uniquely "northern" - not Christian.
Even the icon and statue heavy Catholic Church - when it's being honest, just doesn't much cotton to the idea of a winter feast. I was at a Latin mass a few weeks ago - the first week of the advent, and the homily was the (all too familiar) message of spiritual 'cleansing' and, of all things, asceticism so that we would be focused on spiritual, rather than wordly affairs and therefore be able to countenance the return of the savior within our liturgical year.
This in the middle of the chocolate and gravy and Nintendo season.
It helps to remember that the zealots who create religions have such big fish to fry it's no mystery why they would be contemptuous of seasonal feasts or raising and amusing children.
December 18, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a small point. It is not only important to know how rituals, and cultural practices of all kinds, originate. It is important to think about why--and how--they stick.
December 18, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked this piece not because it's a history of how these festivals came to be, but a history of how they make us feel.
Sometimes we need to surround ourselves with the protective glow of sentiment, sometimes we need to wail about our sins, sometimes we need to scrape ourselves clean of every comfort and vice and find our place in the awesome loneliness that surrounds us, each and all.
If this kind of flexibility did not exist in religion, we'd probably feel compelled to invent it. And in fact we have invented it, in the higgeldy-piggeldy way that makes the human race look more like a bunch of children running with scissors than people expressing dignified thoughts about God.
Mr. Avishai's point is that our intentions are good, or at least human. So at this time of year when we're making the sprint from silly to sacred and back again, we might as well recognize that others are doing the same, and throw them a dignified nod or a cheerful wink, depending on what the moment seems to require.
Happy, holy, days to all.
December 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
December 19, 2008 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the Madonna/child definitely 'stuck' as others have also pointed out.
There's a Nat King Cole Christmas Carol I have never heard anyone else do - maybe it was written for him in '62 when the stereo version of "Christmas Song" was recorded.
It's always been a sentimental favorite of mine, as it emphasizes the warmth and humanity - literally of this 'God.'
Sing sweet and low your lullaby
till angels say, \Amen.\
A mother tonight is rocking a cradle in Bethlehem
while wise men follow through the dark a star that beckons them.
A mother tonight is rocking a cradle in Bethlehem.
\A little child shall lead them,\ the prophets said of old.
In storm and tempest keep 'em until the bells is tolled.
Sing sweet and low your lullaby
till angels say, \Amen.\
A mother tonight is rocking a cradle in Bethlehem.
choir
Sing sweet and low your lullaby.
A mother tonight is rocking a cradle in Bethlehem.
December 18, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S.
The whole idea of 'pure' Christianity - especially in the early years when an imminent return of Christ was expected - was that sex - even (or especially perhaps) to procreate was antithetical to the big spiritual picture.
So sexual abstinence was favored to "be a eunuch for Christ." At least one of the early saints took this literally, and castrated himself. - The practice can be traced back to the 'attis' (I think) cult, where all the priests castrated themselves at an annual festival.
Hence, 'hard' ideologies are ALL really antithetical to home and hearth values of raising well fed, happy children and plying them with GI-Joes and M&Ms and a magical story about a kindly old man and his flying reigndeer. Christ has a few lines about the need to abandon your family (reject your father and mother) to become an acolyte - and there's the story of God asking (Issac? I'm blanking) a father to sacrifice his own son.
How's them for 'family values'? We're a bunch of fat and happy 'bourgeoise' still clinging to these religions of desperate slaves and nomadic peoples suffering under the imperial bootheel of Greece or Rome. But we've become the Greece/Rome, so understandably, the primary tenents of our own faiths actually shock our modern conscience.
December 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like a lot of commenters are remembering snippets of the Nietzsche they read years ago in college.
December 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And snippets of Elaine Pagels.
I'm in no way trying to be difficult or reject euchumenicalism - or coldly boil everything down in a 'cynical' Marxist way. I guess I'm trying to emphasize that both Catholic Christianity and Judaism both possess core values that are actually shocking to the 'suburban' middle class concept of modern mores. Seriously - who's up for an 'old' Christ(mas) tradition called self castration? Anyone... Anyone?
I personally am quite moved by the adoration of an infant-God. Instead of God being a super-dictator who is just a leader of men but with supernatural powers to smite, the baby-king appeals to a sublime, spiritual - but gentle - actually FRAGILE place in the soul. In some ways, maybe that is a particularly Catholic/East Orthodox concept - of 'veneration' and 'solemnity' more as a mood or way of carrying yourself than as an ideology.
Catholicism emphasizes a truly ancient (pre-Socratic) notion of 'piety' that is decoupled from ideology. It's a 'procedural' piety as in, burn this oil, say these ancient words (latin) you don't understand, kneel, sit, stand, make the sign of the cross. It's a formulaic or 'recipe' kind of piety.
My ultimate take is that 'Christmas' in the US is, probably rightly, de-coupled from ideology and should (and does) emphasize the rich foods and the colored lights and the gifts; skiing, sledding snowmen with a nice Tom 'n Jerry or Egg Nog in front of the fire after. It's the inclusive American Christmas of "The Christmas Song"
December 18, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. There are two Christmases, really - one of the babe in the manger and the birth of the idea personal sins could be absolved, and the Christmas of Santa, mistletoe and those flashing, colored lights. There is no mention of this cheery ritual in scripture - even of Rudolph, with the miraculously glowing nose. I think that's the Christmas other holidays want to horn in on; in that respect, the centerpiece icon is not the mythical child from the house of David, born under a wandering star, but that foundational issue of Jewish enterprise... Macy's!
December 19, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're too hard. I think they're attempting to respond honestly.
December 19, 2008 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink