Yes, the Holy Family Really Were
Refugees (Part III)

In my last installment, I wrote about the Holy Family suddenly breaking off their flight at Ashkelon, and traveling to Hebron, where they “remained hidden” for six months. Why might they have gone there?

Hebron

Hebron – Tomb of the Patriarchs

Hebron, in the southern part of Judea, about 15 miles south of Jerusalem, was the place where Abraham, while living as a resident alien in the area, bought from the Hittites a field and the cave of Machpelah, which became his family tomb – the first land owned by the future Israelites in Canaan (Gen. 23). Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Rebecca and Leah, were all buried there, and the tomb was – and still is – a great pilgrimage site for Jews. It was also an important site for the Davidic dynasty, as David was anointed King of Judah, and later King of all Israel, in Hebron, and originally reigned from there.

This would have made the Holy Family’s decision to go there understandable because it was so closely connected with Joseph’s ancestry – he might also have had relatives there. At the same time it is rather puzzling. It would seem to be one of the places where Herod might have looked for them. However, the words “remained hidden” may be the key. Hebron is hilly country, and the hills could have provided them a place in which to hide.

The Armenian Infancy Gospel goes on:

But then the people of the city went to warn Herod, in these terms: “The child Jesus is alive; he is at present in the city of Hebron.” Herod dispatched a courier to the chief men of the town enjoining them to seize Jesus by a ruse and to kill him. When Joseph and Mary learned of this, they got ready to leave and go to Egypt. Secretly leaving the town as fugitives, they continued their journey. They traveled it in numerous stages . . . Finally, they arrived in the land of Egypt in the plain of Tanis, and went down to a town where they stayed . . . for six months.[1]

The author of this ancient text clearly continued to see the Holy Family as fugitives and sought by Herod. Unfortunately there is not much detail about their route from Hebron to Egypt. They most likely would have followed the caravan route to Gaza. The situation of this seaport city was unusual. It was originally part of Nabatea, but was given to Herod by the emperor Augustus. The people of Nabatea did not relish losing their seaport, and there was tension over this. It seems to have been partly because of this that Gaza was separately administered by its own governor. Mary and Joseph may have gotten through undetected, if the governor was not particularly affected by Herod’s concerns. Or they may have passed through by attaching themselves to a large trade caravan.

Egypt-map-2Their route on foot from there would have taken them to Jenysos and Raphia. They then would have crossed the El-Arish, a brook that served as a boundary between Judaea and Egypt. They then reached the seaport of Pelusium (today Tel el-Farama or Farmea). Though now a desert, the city at the time was located between two branches of the Nile, so would have been more lush and fertile. Here the Romans had a border fortress. The Holy Family might have been detected here if the word was out for them, but the Roman governor may not have shared Herod’s interest in Jewish fugitives, or Herod may not have thought to have them traced this far.

Although I have proceeded mainly on conjecture, there is some historical evidence that this route was preserved in local tradition. Bernard, a Frankish monk, who visited the area in 870, wrote of his eastward journey:

. . . From Tanis we came to the city of Farmea, where there is a church in honor of blessed Mary, in the place to which, at the warning of the angel, Joseph fled with the boy and his mother.[2]

Recent excavations in Tel el-Farama have in fact unearthed a Byzantine church of the fifth or sixth century.

journey2

Coptic icon of the Holy Family on the Flight to Egypt

Continuing to travel across the Nile delta would have brought them to Tanis, which was also once a great city, and by tradition was the place where the baby Moses was rescued from the Nile by Pharaoh’s daughter. So the route they traveled in the scenario imagined by the Armenian Infancy Gospel actually imagines the itinerary that Joseph and his brothers took to Egypt, and follows the life of Moses, even though the author never overtly alludes to this.

Various traditions say that the Holy Family traveled to a number of places going down the Nile by boat before setting at a place now known as Dayr al-Muharraq, where there is now a monastery. Some of these traditions originated in the early Coptic church, and portray the Holy Family always traveling one step ahead of Herod’s soldiers (for some of these traditions, see here and here).

James Cowan gives a convincing description of what Mary and Joseph must have experienced in their exile:

What must it have been like for Joseph and Mary to encounter this world? First, they would not have spoken Egyptian or Greek. Aramaic was their language, so the prospect of talking to people other than fellow Jews recently migrated from Israel was remote. The cosmopolitan culture of cities such as Heliopolis, Sais, and Tanis would have been alien to them. Rather than experiencing a sense of freedom in their country of exile, one must assume they had become imprisoned there in their own language. It may have been one reason why they were badly treated in certain places; they found it difficult to communicate.[3]

The Return Trip

How long did the Holy Family stay in Egypt, and when did they return? The traditional time is three years and six months,[4] based partly on the passage in Revelation 12:5-6, about the “woman clothed with the sun,” which tells us:

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.

The “twelve hundred and sixty days” (three-and-a-half years) was thought by some to be the time the woman, identified with Mary, spends in the desert in Egypt after Christ’s birth. I think this is not likely to be the meaning of this passage, since it clearly takes place after the Ascension (her son is “caught up to God and his throne”). Rather it represents the Jerusalem church, of which Mary is the type, fleeing through the desert north to Pella, during the siege of Jerusalem in 68-70 A.D. The same time, three-and-a-half years, was mentioned in Rev. 11:2-3 as the length of time the Gentiles would “trample the holy city.”

Also, if the date of late 3-2 B.C. for Jesus’ birth is correct, this interpretation would not have left three-and-a-half years before Herod’s death in 1 B.C. There were roughly twelve to fifteen months between Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death. Given that the Magi did not come to Bethlehem right away, it might have been only a year that the family stayed in Egypt.

Their departure from Egypt might have been immediately after Herod’s death, but since the impetus for leaving was Joseph’s dream it might have been later. Matthew writes:

When Herod had died, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” He rose, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go back there. And because he had been warned in a dream, he departed for the region of Galilee. He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth. (Mt. 2:19-23).

The sources generally don’t tell us anything about their route back to Nazareth. But the question of timing is interesting. Depending on when they arrived, the Holy Family may have been caught in the middle of a war.

Some two or three months after Herod’s death, his son, Archelaus began his reign by putting down some rebellious Jews, and slaughtering around 3,000 of them in the Temple at Passover time. Some of the rebels there had been Galileans. They fled north, and the rebellion grew. A man named Judah ben Hezekiah, with some followers, sacked the royal palace in the city of Sepphoris, about three-and-a-half miles from Nazareth, and distributed the riches there, and took weapons for themselves from the royal armory. Varus, the Roman governor of Syria, acted immediately to put down the rebellion. He sent troops to Galilee, killed or enslaved the population of Sepphoris, and burned the city so thoroughly that archaeologists have discovered no remains at all from it from this period. In all, the Romans crucified some 2,000 Jews during this war. [5] Josephus didn’t record anything about what happened in Nazareth, but it would most certainly would have been affected by the violence.

We know that Joseph avoided going to Bethlehem, most probably because he had heard about Archelaus’ slaughter of the Jews in Jerusalem; he was probably unaware of what was going to happen in Galilee, and as a result, may have become caught up in a violent situation he did not expect.

Only one biblical film that I know of has portrayed this historical possibility: The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965). Someone connected with the film[6] had evidently studied Roman history and knew about the war of Varus. The film depicts the Romans putting down the rebellion in Judea and Galilee and has the Holy Family, as they return to Nazareth, pass by a row of crosses. Jesus, now about nine months or a year old, watches them. This is an impressive and evocative means of foreshadowing the future. It was also a sign that the life of the Holy Family was like that of so many of their fellow-countrymen at the time – deeply affected by political strife, war and the displacement of people.


Notes
[1] Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, XV, 2-3. I have translated the French text from Peeters, Les Evangiles de l’enfance II, pp. 160-61.

[2] “Itinerarium Bernardi Monachi,” ix, Titus Tobler and Augustus Molinier, eds. Itinera Hierosolymitana et descriptions Terrae Sanctae bellis sacris anteriora (Geneva: J.G. Fick, 1879), vol. I, pp. 313-314.

[3] James Cowan, Fleeing Herod: A Journey through Coptic Egypt with the Holy Family, p. 137.

[4] Hippolytus of Rome, in the early third century, writes in his Commentary on Matthew: “Concerning ‘the days which will be cut short’ (Matt. 24:22) because of the anger of the Antichrist – so the length of time of the Antichrist is three years and [six] months, for as long a time as Christ remained in his flight in Egypt.” The time he is referring to is evidently the seventieth “week of years” mentioned by Daniel.

[5] Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, X, 9.

[6] The movie was directed by George Stevens, with a screenplay by Stevens and Paul Lee Barrett. It was based on the book of the same name by Fulton Oursler and scripts for a radio show of the same name, written by novelist Henry Denker, who also wrote novels set at the time of Jesus. This historical reference to the war of Varus doesn’t occur in Oursler’s work, I think it may have come from Denker, though I haven’t really been able to research it.

Yes, the Holy Family Really Were Refugees (Part II)

My interest in writing about this was sparked in good part by the recent refugee situation, but it is a subject I have been studying for quite some time on my own; in fact, I hope to eventually  turn my studies about the Nativity and its earliest celebrations into a book. So my treatment has grown considerably as I have worked on it. I will conclude with Part III, which should be shorter.

Can we imagine historically what happened to Joseph, Mary and Jesus when Herod issued his orders, and the angel warned them to flee? Apart from the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us in the briefest possible words: “Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt. He stayed there until the death of Herod” (Mt. 2:14-15), we have almost no other direct historical information.

Refugees-La-Sagrada-Familia

Refugees – La Sagrada Familia by Karen Lattimore

Yet do do know a few things. We can study the historical context, and it reveals some fascinating things. We can connect the flight of the Holy Family to the actual political situation at the time, which directly affected them. So first we need to look at this context.

The Date

One of the things that complicates our efforts to understand this story is that the traditional date of Herod’s death in 4. B. C. is almost certainly wrong, and the correct date is 1 B.C. This date is actually being accepted by more and more scholars. (see my blog post here). Knowing this, we can identify the much-discussed “census” that Joseph and Mary had come to Bethlehem for: they obeyed a decree of Caesar Augustus, which can be identified with the “enrollment” throughout the Empire in 3 B.C. It involved a loyalty oath to Augustus, in preparation for his being declared “Father of his Country” in 2 B. C. Jesus was therefore probably born in the fall or winter of 3-2 B. C. And the oath was important, yet it has so far been overlooked.

We also know from the Jewish historian Josephus that in Judea this oath was coordinated with a loyalty oath to Herod.[1] One of the stipulations of the oath to Augustus was that those who took it had to swear to reveal any plot against him, even by their friends and relatives.[2] The oath to Herod (if it was separate) probably included something similar.

Bethlehem, where Mary and Joseph would have taken the oath, was the birthplace of King David and the home of the Davidic dynasty – and Joseph was of “the house and family of David.” All the tribal groups of ancient Israel tended to be concentrated in their ancestral homes, though some members lived outside of them. It was the ancient Israelite custom to have census taken by tribes and families gathered together, and this was still continued at Herod’s time; in fact, Herod had copies of all these tribal genealogies in his archives.[3] So Joseph and all the members of his tribe who lived or were staying outside that area would have gone to Bethlehem to take the oath. All of this is very important for understanding the situation, and historians have almost completely ignored it because they have been looking at the wrong date.

The Situation

Herod’s throne had been in trouble for some time, and especially just before this, because of a quarrel with the Emperor Augustus – the joint oath might be an attempt for the two to reconcile. The loyalty oath to the Emperor was alarming; most people in Judea would have feared that Augustus was getting ready to covert Herod’s kingdom directly into a Roman province. Most of Herod’s Jewish subjects heartily disliked him, but they felt direct rule by Rome would be worse. This increased the hostility of Herod’s subjects; some 6,000 Pharisees refused to take the oath, and Herod imposed a fine on them, which his sister-in-law, hoping to defuse the situation, promised to pay.[4] The fact that number of those who didn’t swear could be counted, and their names were recorded, makes it clear that the oath required some kind of written record. In fact, it would have been a convenient way to update the genealogies. Herod, of course, was aware of the growing unrest in his kingdom, and it would have increased his paranoia and fear that his throne was in danger.

The birth of Jesus didn’t go completely unnoticed at the time; we can tell this from some things in Luke’s Gospel that we don’t really mention that much: “So [the shepherds] went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds.” (Lk. 2:16-18). When Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem for the Presentation, the large crowds that were always present in the Temple would have witnessed Simeon proclaiming the “light to the nations and glory of Israel” had arrived; at the same time the prophetess Anna “gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem” (Lk. 2:22-38).

In short, all of Bethlehem, and Jerusalem, were buzzing about the newborn Messiah and his parents. This, by most reckonings was even before the Magi came. Somewhere someone probably let their names slip. The rumors of a Messiah and the names of his parents could easily have come to the notice of the authorities.

All this came at a time of widespread Messianic fervor. It has been speculated that the Magi knew the prophecy of Balaam (a non-Israelite) in Numbers 24:17-18:

I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not nigh:
a star shall come forth out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the forehead of Moab,
and break down all the sons of Sheth.
Edom shall be dispossessed. . .

Herod was an Edomite, the Hebrew for the people of Idumea, the homeland of Herod’s father. He could have read the prophecy as saying he himself would be dispossessed by this new king.

It’s surprising that Herod, who basically ran a police state in the latter part of his reign  and used many spies, didn’t have the Magi followed when they went to visit the newborn King. He could easily have learned where the family he was looking for was staying without depending on the Magi coming back to tell him. Or perhaps Herod actually did this as a precaution, and the Gospel doesn’t tell us.

The logic of Matthew’s account – when the Magi don’t come back, he orders all the young male babies in Bethlehem and the surrounding area killed (Mt. 2:16) – suggests Herod ordered the slaying because he didn’t know which child he needed to kill and wanted to make sure he got the right one. But if we recall who peopled Bethlehem and the surrounding Judean towns, and realize that a large proportion of them were members of the tribe of Judah, and a good subset of them of the house of David, the line from which the Messiah was to come — we can understand it better. He was not doing this just to make sure he killed the one child he was after; he was literally killing off all the potential Messiahs. This perhaps is why he killed not just the babies of Bethlehem, but the surrounding towns as well. Perhaps he would have done the same even if did know how to find Jesus.

If Herod had Mary and Joseph’s names and wanted to get their description or other details about them, he would only have had to look at the enrollment document they had just completed. And let’s not forget that every Jew in the area had just sworn to inform on people plotting against Herod – and setting up a rival king to him and his dynasty would definitely have been considered a plot. Many of Joseph’s relatives would have been affected, and their lives and their children’s lives were in danger. Hopefully Joseph would have been able to warn them, in time; Mary and Joseph may not have been the only ones in the family who had to flee with their children.

The Escape Route

How did the Holy Family get to Egypt? What borders would they have crossed and what would have been required of them?

Study of the known roads, travel conditions, and political realities of the time can tell us a few things. In a recent study, Bruce Crew notes that Joseph most likely would not have gone by the southern route through Nabatea, since, given Herod’s political ties there — his mother was from Nabatea — he could have easily had the borders watched or closed and had his contacts inside the country be on the lookout for these fugitives.

Rather, Crew thinks that once they left Bethlehem by night, Joseph would have gone westward on foot (traditionally, leading Mary and Jesus on a donkey) along the Roman road that descended into the Elah Valley and through Shephelah lowlands by way of the Hussan Ridge. They could have traveled this distance in 4 or 5 hours. Their path took them to Beit Guvrim. They were now in the Mediterranean coastal plain and could have joined a caravan traveling south on the international trade route. At some point, he believes, they would have turned west and had two choices. The could have headed for Ashkelon (ancient Askalon), a free Hellenic city, and a major seaport, which was outside of Herod’s jurisdiction. There they could have taken a ship to Alexandria – they certainly had received enough gold from the Magi to pay for their passage — and blended in with the population in that city’s Jewish quarter. This was the easiest and quickest route, especially when traveling with a baby or small child. Or they could have proceeded to travel by foot along the northern coast of the Sinai peninsula, until they reached Egypt.[5]

Crew never mentions the question of crossing borders. But his suggestions about the route receive some unexpected confirmation from the early material about the Flight to Egypt in one of the early Infancy Gospels, sources he never mentions. These works are, of course, without any historical attestation, but not completely without historical value, because they were written by people who understood something of the time, more perhaps than we many centuries later do.

Most of the apocryphal Infancy Gospels say little to nothing about the trip to Egypt. The Protevangelium of James stops before the Holy Family leaves for Egypt. The Arabic Infancy Gospel has them magically transported to Egypt after a single night of walking, and has nothing about the route. Most of the others don’t say anything about the route before they enter Egypt. The only early source that does describe their route to Egypt is the Armenian Infancy Gospel, and dates from the late sixth century or later, but though it is now found only in Armenian, its source was undoubtedly earlier and in Syriac, and so in time, area and language close to the original events.[6] It is based in good part on the Protevangelium and another work called Pseudo-Matthew. But the part on the Flight to Egypt appears to be original. I’m not accepting any information that comes from this or other works as infallibly true; I am using them as hypotheses to discuss the possibilities.

The Armenian Infancy Gospel, after describing Joseph’s dreams and his warning by the angel, says:

Joseph, rising in haste, took the child and his mother and left as a fugitive for Ashkelon, a city situated on the edge of the ocean sea and from there for Hebron, where they remained hidden for six months. . .[7]

This largely confirms Crew’s account as far as Ashkelon. But then they went to Hebron. There doesn’t seem to be anything objectionable about this route – unless you know the geography. This would have meant that they left the seaport where they were about to sail for freedom – and then turned and gone right back into Herod’s territory, to Hebron in southern Judea. Why would they have done that?

Holy family refugees map-1

The author of the Infancy Gospel doesn’t comment at all on it, or explain why they backtracked, which indicates that the Syrian author probably didn’t know much about the actual geography of southern Judea or Egypt. To me, this indicates that the author didn’t make up these details, but was just reporting what had come to him as tradition. Nor have Crew and other modern authors I have read, even when they mention the traditional sources, noted this oddity.[8] It actually seems that something sent Joseph and Mary back after they got to Ashkelon. What might it have been?

It might be because they had learned at the border that they needed some document they didn’t have, or would have had to take an oath that revealed their identity and purpose (see Part I). Even if they managed to cross the border unnoticed, they may have had trouble. Although Ashkelon was a Hellenistic city outside of Herod’s jurisdiction, it still had friendly relations with Herod. If Herod had details about Mary and Joseph, he probably would not have hesitated to send word to officials in Ashkelon and other seaports to be on the lookout for them. Their names would have been posted prominently. There are papyri from Egypt, for instance, that describe the search for escaped slaves, brigands and other fugitives. One said that an edict about brigands being sought was to be posted “in all the capitals and all the important places. . .” Another papyrus said: “The names and distinguishing marks (notae) of fugitives and those who associate with them must be given to the magistrates so that they may be identified easily.”[9]. If they saw their names posted, Mary and Joseph would have had to flee immediately.

But why go to Hebron? This and the rest of their journey and their return, will be treated in Part III.


NOTES
[1] Josephus Jewish Antiquities 17: 41-45.

[2] The oath as taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia has survived: An English translation of the text can be found in N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Sourcebook II: The Empire (New York 1966), pp. 34-35.

[3] Josephus, Life, 6.

[4] For more on this subject, see E. Mary Smallwood. The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 98.

[5] “Why not Nabatea?” The Flight of Joseph’s Family from Bethlehem to Egypt and Migration to the Town of Nazareth in Galilee.” Bible and Spade 19:4 (2006): 118-125

[6] See the introduction to Paul Peeters, ed. Les Evangiles de l’enfance II. Redactions syriaques, arabe et armeniennes, traduites et annotées (Paris: Picard, 1914)

[7] The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, XV, 2-3. I have translated the French text from Peeters, Les Evangiles de l’enfance II, pp. 160-61. This text is very little known; there is a new English translation by Abraham Tarian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy: With Three Early versions of the Protevanglium of James (Oxford / New York: OUP, 2008), but it is very expensive, and I haven’t yet seen it.

[8] James Cowan, Fleeing Herod: A Journey Through Coptic Egypt with the Holy Family. Paraclete Press, 2013; Crew, “Why not Nabatea?” does not discuss any of the ancient accounts.

[9] Claudia Moatti, “Le controle de la mobilité des personnes dans le monde romain.” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome. Antiquité 112 (2000): 926.

Yes, The Holy Family Really Were Refugees (Part I)

Carpaccio-flight_into_egypt-c1500

Carpaccio, The Flight into Egypt, ca. 1500

President Trump’s refugee ban has brought the subject of refugees into Catholic internet commentary in a big way. I have been stunned by some of the arguments going around by anti-refugee people who call themselves Catholic. One attempt to carry modern concerns about refugees into first-century Palestine has been heard quite frequently on social media these last few weeks.

It seems to have started with Catholic writer Taylor Marshall more than a year ago:

“Remember the Good Samaritan! He did not take the roadside victim home with him. Rather, the Good Samaritan put the victim up in a hotel and paid for him to get better. The Good Samaritan was good and commended by Christ. The Good Samaritan did the right thing: humanitarian aid.” (Source)

This is frequently said by those advocating the establishment of “safe zones” for refugees in Muslim lands, in order to give them humanitarian aid in their own countries rather than allowing them to enter the U.S. However, I don’t think Marshall has though through this comparison very well. The situation in the parable does not fit at all the situation of refugees. The unfortunate man had been attacked by a couple of ordinary robbers. He was not in a war zone; he was not suffering persecution by those in power for his religion or ethnicity. He did not find it impossible to remain in his own country. There is no indication he needed or wanted to become a refugee. This is like saying that me being mugged in Central Park qualifies me to become a refugee to Canada.

flight_egypt_rembrant

Rembrandt knew what refugees looked like (The Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 1647)

People are now repeating the comparison as though it was Holy Writ itself. The actual point of the parable – that those racial, ethnically and religiously different from us are also our neighbors – apparently sails right over these people’s heads. Do they really understand what things are like now in the war zones in Iraq and Syria? U.N. refugee officials say there is no way to secure any part of these countries and make them safe. Majority Muslim nations in the area, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, have already taken in millions of refugees, and still there is need. That is why there is a crisis.

Others actually say: “What is wrong with extreme vetting? We all face extreme vetting to get into heaven.” (They conveniently forget that one of the requirements of that “extreme vetting” is “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” — Mt. 25:35).

This is again a false comparison. To begin with there is already “extreme vetting for refugees. A surprisingly large number of people are unaware of this. Including, it seems, President Trump, who said that his Muslim ban, which included refugees, had to be instituted and implemented as quickly as possible (apparently less than a day), because a large number of “bad dudes” would “rush over” to the U.S. as soon as they heard about it. This is absurd. Refugees coming to the U.S. are already put through an extremely rigorous process of identity and background checks, lasting 18 months to 2 years or more, before they are allowed to leave the refugee camps and come here. Those whose refugee status are halted because of the ban must begin this process all over again. All because of Trump’s inability to inform himself (he rejected all advice from Homeland Security and the State Department, who would have told him the facts). No one can just “rush over” to the U.S. as a refugee.

But my concern here is not with the President, but with Catholics. Some really strange attitudes are surfacing. One blogger around Christmas time insisted that the Holy Family could never have been homeless, or even been poor, implying that unless they were solidly middle class, he would have nothing to do with them. He also strangely insisted that could have done nothing illegal in fleeing as refugees to Egypt because “borders were immaterial” back then. Any attempt to say otherwise is “politicizing” the Holy Family. Others have echoed this: “It was all one Empire!”

I’m sorry, but the Holy Family were definitely refugees, with everything that goes along with it. Fleeing for your life from a homicidal maniac like King Herod was not a time for niceties. This is an area where a historian like me, who has studied ancient history, can be of help. While records aren’t the best for the late first-century B.C. early 1st century (as opposed to the later empire), we do know a few things.

It has often been said, even recently that Rome was a place of open borders.[1] But it wasn’t really quite that (as even the supporters of the idea acknowledge). The Mediterranean world of the time was made up of Rome, with its related Italian cities and Roman colonies, as well as semi-independent client kingdoms, like Herod’s Judea, Hellenistic “free” cities allied with Rome, federate cities and Roman provinces, each with its own governor; each of these entities, to a certain extent, had its own laws, privileges, customs and forms of citizenship, and of course, their own borders and different relationships with each other.

By the time of the birth of Jesus, mobility and travel throughout the empire had increased enormously because of the Augustan peace. Students and merchants, officials and diplomats, soldiers and slaves, traveled and crossed borders all the time. There were different categories of people, including those on the move. Incolae were residents with a domicile in a city; Peregrini, (migrants) were protected foreigners and could travel safely in the empire. They did have to prove their right to this by proving their identity and origin. There was a word for refugees, or “those who have fled their homelands”; it was advenae.[2]

This meant that people had to be identified while traveling. There was nothing like an identity card as such, though those with Roman citizenship could acquire a copy of the document and carry it with them; it would open doors for them. There were several means of identification, including a diploma by a prefect, or a letter of introduction and recommendation by a known person, with his seal; in lieu of photographs, identity could be proved by physical descriptions of the person in question with distinguishing marks, such as scars, in written documents. Papers weren’t always necessary; oaths often were. St. Paul twice informed the authorities of his Roman citizenship to get better treatment (Acts 16:37-38; 22:25-29). We don’t know if he carried a certificate of citizenship with him, but given that making a false claim of citizenship was punishable by death, the authorities may have been inclined to believe him even without it.[3] Among the people that needed to be identified were fugitive slaves and escaped prisoners. Barbarians (Germans) were checked at the frontiers. Merchants had to have authorization to travel to certain ports in other countries. A Roman garrison was stationed at the border to some provinces to control entrance. Egypt, directly dependent on Rome, was a country with strict entrance and exit requirements, a diploma or safe-conduct was required for ships entering and leaving ports. [4]

Romans were proud of the fact that they were founded as a city of refugees: their founder, Aneas, had come to Rome with a small band after the fall of Troy. This could be compared to the nature of the U.S. as a nation of immigrants. But this doesn’t mean there were no problems. People in the empire often became migrants and refugees due to war and political strife. But Roman and its provinces didn’t always treat migrants well, even once they had found a home; whole peoples were often expelled, such as when Claudius expelled the immigrant Jews from Rome in 41 A.D. (They had originally come there as prisoners of war after Pompey’s conquest of Judea in 63 B.C.) From time to time beggars (often foreign migrants) were expelled from Rome. The ancient Romans often didn’t handle these matters better than we do today.

It is possible, then, that Mary and Joseph crossed the Egyptian border legally; on the other hand, they may not have had proper papers to cross (especially if they were not expecting to leave their native Kingdom of Judea and hadn’t brought any with them), and crossed illegally.

It’s also possible that they had to get in illegally because they were wanted fugitives. I’ll explain why in Part II.

NOTES
[1] Mary Beard, “Ancient Rome’s Open Borders — The Romans would have been puzzled by today’s hostility to migrants — and the EU’s lack of political unity.” Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y] October 17, 2015: C.3. (This is bound to behind a firewall; I’m citing in such a way that it will be possible for people to consult the print ed).

[2] Claudia Moatti, “Migration and Cosmopolitanization,” The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome (Cambridge UP, 2013), p. 80.

[3] Sean A. Adams, “Paul the Roman Citizen: Roman Citizenship in the Ancient World and its Importance for Understanding Acts 22:22–29.” Paul: Jew, Greek and Roman, ed. Stanley F. Porter (Boston, Brill, 2008), pp. 309-326.

[4] Claudia Moatti, “Translation, communication and mobility in the Roman empire,” Classical Antiquity 25 (2006): 141–80. Egypt is one of the places for which we have the best records; due to the dry climate it was easier for them to be preserved. Note (3-7-2017): this section has been updated to reflect the new knowledge I gained from the same author’s article in French: “Le controle de la mobilite des personnes dans le monde romain.” Me?langes de l’Ecole Franc?aise de Rome. Antiquite? 112 (2000): 925-58

Franciscan Saints — January 2017

After a brief detour with Louis Massignon, I am continuing my discussion of the first Franciscan church in Rome, San Francesco a Ripa, and the Franciscan saints associated with it. I was delighted to be able to visit this church during my first trip to Rome back in 1985, and I made a modest financial contribution to the recent restoration of the cell Francis stayed in there. As a result, I’ve become more and more interested in this church.

I’m including a preview of what I hope to write on St. Ludovica Albertoni, whose tomb is here, especially since her feast day is today, January 31. The most notable early Franciscan figure associated with San Francesco a Ripa though, is Lady Jacopa dei Settesoli, who is credited with a role in founding the Franciscan monastery there.

The conventino of Lady Jacopa

Since the early thirteenth century, the Church of San Francesco a Ripa Grande has been an important center of the Order of Friars Minor in Rome. How the church came to be is something most people, even many Secular Franciscans don’t know. But now the details in the traditional written accounts have been supplemented by evidence from recent archaeological excavations.

The church’s name comes from its location near the Porto di Ripa Grande on the Tiber river in the Trastevere region of Rome. Recent excavations have shown that the area served from the earliest Christian period for pilgrims; a building and a small cemetery dating from the second or third century have been discovered; perhaps the cemetery was for foreign pilgrims to Rome who died before returning home. [1]

Sometime in the tenth century, the Benedictines of the Cluniac reform built a monastery on the spot known as San Cosmato. It had its own chapel, dedicated to St. Blaise, with a priest as chaplain, a hospital to care for lepers in the final stages of their illness, and a hospice for pilgrims. By the thirteenth century, it was surrounded by the palazzi and towers of the noble Roman families of the Trastevere. At the same time, the Benedictines seemed no longer to be making much use of the buildings including the hospice and hospital, for which they were heavily in debt.[2] This is how St. Francis first saw it, probably during his trip to Rome in 1212 to consult with the Pope

It was during his 1212 trip that he become acquainted with the Lady Jacopa, as we have seen (see my post on Jacopa from March-April 2016). Wadding says that it was during this stay that

[Jacopa] conceived a heartfelt devotion toward Francis and his companions; she used to always receive them with a hospitable welcome and with all charity, offered them kind services. She offered her aid in obtaining from the Abbot of St. Cosma, in the vernacular Cosmati, in the Trastevere region, near a lodging for foreigners near the bank of the Tiber, a certain refuge or guest-house for the brothers coming to Rome, where the holy father was accustomed to stay and where his cell, converted to a chapel, in which from time to time the sacred act is performed, is still devoutly honored by everyone.[3]

St. Francis’ cell at San Francesco a Ripa, after restoration

Wadding’s account is our basic written source. But we can get a better idea of the details from other documents. Jacopa clearly understood Francis’ preference for a poor habitation. During his trip to Rome in 1209 as he was hoping to have Pope Innocent III confirm his order, Francis and his brothers stayed at the leper hospital of San Antonio near St. John Lateran, where he and his brothers served the lepers.(At that time, he popes lived at the Lateran. [4]

While he sometimes stayed with the noble and wealthy, such as Jacopa and Matteo Rosso Osini, who sheltered Francis at the Castello Sant‘Angelo near St. Peter’s, Francis greatly preferred a poor habitation, and the decrepit and abandoned buildings of the hospice of San Cosmato were entirely in conformity to his desires. It is a relatively short distance from St. Peter’s basilica, which was an important pilgrimage place for him, proved by the trip he made to St. Peter’s at the beginning of his conversion.

A seventeenth- century document, copied from the original signboard in the cell describes the cell of St. Francis:

. . . a large room that was located behind the tribune of the Church for use in the Gothic period for the convenience of the hospice for hearing Mass and also served for use as a Choir for the Religious . . . In this large room the Holy Father made a partition of woven willow branches and potsherds and formed of it a little room and oratory, for his use when he came to Rome. From the same room one went from the pulpit of the church in cornu evangelii [on the Gospel side], according to Gothic custom; at present you can see the walled-up door; there followed from the side of the garden a little religious dormitory with little rooms, likewise of woven wicker branches, for use of [Francis’] religious companions.[5]

Intervening to get Francis and his friars permission to use the building was just the first step in Lady Jacopa’s intervention. In 1229, shortly after Francis’ death, his great friend Cardinal Ugolino, now Pope Gregory IX, wrote to the Benedictines at San Cosmato, asking them to relinquish the “almost abandoned” buildings of the monastery and hospital to the Friars Minor.[6] A new church and convent buildings were erected and while the original cell of St. Francis was preserved, the “little religious dormitory” was rebuilt] and formed what seventeenth-century documents call the “conventino [little convent of Lady Jacoba.” This is an indication that she had the new convent built at her expense.[7] Another Roman nobleman, Pandolfo dell‘Angullaria, helped pay for the construction of the new church, where he was portrayed in a fresco.[8]

But by 1249, the friars were beginning to leave the new church and convent of San Francesco for the new convent at Santa Maria in Aracoeli in the center of Rome, which soon became the Roman center of the order. San Francesco became the home of the Observant Franciscans in the 1500’s and the convent was expanded and rebuilt. The recent excavations have once again revealed Lady Jacopa’s conventino.

Ludovica Albertoni

My interest in Ludovica was first awakened even before I became a Secular Franciscan when I visited the church of San Francesco a Ripa and saw her tomb with Bernini’s renowned sculpture of her. But there is actually very little about her in English; in fact there doesn’t seem to be any modern biography in Italian. Her statue by Bernini is much more famous than she is. This is a shame, because her life is fascinating, she was loved by the poor of Rome for her charity. and there was a cult surrounding her from the time of her death in 1533. It was a friar at San Francesco da Ripa, named Giovanni Pauolo, and a descendant of Ludovica, who wrote her biography in 1671, at the time of her beatification.

The_Blessed_Ludovica_Albertoni_Distributing_Alms

Bl Ludovica Albertoni distributing alms

Ludovica, who was born in 1473, came from the noble family of the Albertoni, and married to a nobleman named Giacomo della Cetera. They had three daughters. After her husband’s death in 1506, Ludovica, now age 33, donned the habit of the Franciscan tertiaries, who were centered at San Francesco a Ripa. One of the most memorable events recalled in her biography was her aid to the poor after the sack of Rome in 1527 by the troops of the Emperor Charles V, who breached the city walls in the Trastevere district and poured into the city. The Pope and cardinals took refuge in the fortress, Castel Sant‘Angolo. Ludovica’s biographer recalls:

. . . there was nothing, either profane or sacred, that was not contaminated . . . neither the old men or the young, neither the married women, nor the widows, nor the young maids, nor the children, neither religious nor churches; turning everything upside down, profaning altars, violating the virgins and plundering everything, they left Rome bare of riches and possessions, but completely covered with sadness and infamy.

Blessed Ludovica . . . having compassion on Rome, her homeland, and her fellow citizens, the Romans, and each one without distinction, retired to the remotest corner of her house; having covered herself completely with hair shirt and sackcloth, she gave herself up to tears, weeping continuously for the misfortunes and calamities of the Romans. Forgetting completely the care of her body, she gave herself up completely to most urgently supplicating God. . . . Nor did the Blessed ever fail, as best as she could to exhort everyone to the defense of their legitimate head and true pastor [The Pope], the defense of whom in such a legitimate war was not to lose one’s life, but a changing of the temporal for the eternal.

That raging tempest was stilled: and Ludovica went to let herself be seen in public, as though a new light after a long and fearful darkness, she revived cheerfulness in her fellow citizens, consoling everyone; and distributing to the neediest almost all her possessions, she made herself a beggar, in order to come to the aid of the poverty of everyone. . .

. . having gone with a great sum of money through the city, and to each person she met, she would give, according to need, fitting alms. . . She had the finest cloth spun and woven to keep in this way many young girls from idleness and aided them with wages; with this cloth she later provided the churches with altar-cloths and albs and similar things, necessary for the divine worship.

Every day innumerable poor people came to her palace, and to each she gave either something to eat or money, consoling everyone equally, while to everyone she showed herself to be an equally compassionate mother.[9]

I will try to write more fully about Ludovica next time.

You can sign up to get these posts by e-mail here.

Notes
[1] Paola Degni and Pier Luigi Porzio, eds. La fabbrica del convento. Memorie storiche, trasformazioni e recupero del complesso di San Francesco a Ripa in Trastevere. (Rome: Donzelli, 2011), p. 176.

[2] See the bull Cum deceat vos of Pope Gregory IX, March 1229, in Wadding Annales, 1229, xxix.

[3] Wadding, Annales, 1212, xxxiv. Roger of Wendover, continuer of the English chronicler Matthew of Paris, says that St. Francis “constructed an oratory in the city of Rome,” which, though a bit of an exaggeration, can only refer to these cells of himself and his companions. Matthew Paris, Cronica Maiora, ad ann. 1227, ed. by Henry R. Luard (London, 1876), vol. III, p. 32.

[4] Bonaventure, Legenda Maior, III, 9. We learn this from a note was inserted by the Minister General who succeeded St. Bonaventure, Jerome of Ascoli, the future Pope Nicholas IV. He learned of it form Cardinal Riccardo degli Annibaldi, a relative of Innocent Ill; cf. Chron. 24 General. in Analecta franciscana, III, 365. See Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God, The Tree of Life, The Life of St. Francis, trans. Ewert Cousins (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), p. 204.

[5] Anna Menichella, San Francesco a Ripa. Vicende costruttive della prima chiesa Francescana di Roma (Rome, Edizioni Rari Nantes), p. 15.

[6] Wadding Annales, 1229, xxix.

[7] Wadding notes that Jacopa raised the abandoned buildings “to the dignity of a monastery”"Annales, 1229, xiv; see Menichella, San Francesco a Ripa, p. 13.

[8] Menichella, San Francesco a Ripa, pp. 11-13.

[9] Giovanni Pauolo, Vita della beata Ludovica Albertoni (Rome: Giuseppe Corvo, 1671, pp. 153-54, 166-67.

Marching for Women and For Life

One of the things that encouraged me most after Barack Obama’s election in 2008 — when there was very little to be encouraged about — was the way opposition to his anti-life policies united pro-lifers as never before. Good came out of that. women's march

This past weekend, with the inauguration of Donald Trump, was a pretty miserable one for me and for many others, but there was one astonishing bright spot: pro-choice and pro-life feminists united (very reluctantly in some cases) at the Women’s March in Washington on Saturday.

The march began as a protest against Trump’s and the Republican policies by some feminist and liberal women – they opposed the proposed Repubublica repeal of Obamacare with nothing to replace it, and anti-illegal immigrant policies that would separate mothers and children, along with other general concerns, such as rape, domestic violence, the wage gap between men and women — and for many, the renewed attack on abortion. “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” was the rallying cry.

Many pro-life feminists wanted to join in, and some groups applied as sponsors of the march. A group called New Wave Feminists was originally accepted, but when it was discovered they were pro-life, some of the march leaders insisted they be rejected. (Not all the leaders of the march were agreed about it). A pro-life women’s clinic was accepted, then rejected for the same reason. In the end, many pro-life women attended, wanted or not, including Students for Life, who hoisted a huge banner saying “Women are Betrayed by Abortion.”  Nearly 500,000 women (and men) attended the march in Washington, and hundreds of thousand more in other cities. Some pro-lifers were welcomed, some were yelled at and even attacked. But they were there.

Even more than this, the media took notice — although they have refused for over 40 years to give any notice to the yearly March for Life in Washington, whose numbers were just as large, and nearly as largely female, as many as 300,00-400,00 each year. Huffington Post published a surprisingly positive article about the pro-life presence at the march.  Another positive mention came from The Atlantic. I’m surprised at the way the Atlantic article, as well as others, marveled at the “new” type of anti-abortion feminists. They made it all the way through the article without mentioning Feminists for Life, which was founded in 1972, even before Roe v. Wade. Many early anti-abortion activists were also quite radical in their politics. The pro-life movement is really returning to its roots.

Here is an excellent video story by the Daily Signal:

here is Destiny Herndon-DeLaRosa, from New Wave Feminists, telling her group’s story:

Unfortunately not all pro-lifers sees this as I do. Many, including many Catholics, are hating on the march with astonishing venom. Simcha Fischer answers them much better than I ever could:

Let’s hope that this slight thaw between feminist groups turns into a genuine spring day. We can use the comfort in the fight ahead.