Ghostbusters Re-heated

Doggy bags are a wonderful thing and one of simple pleasures in life is that blissful moment the pizza from the night before comes out of the microwave and hits your early morning taste buds. The crust might seem a little soggy but all the things that are right out weight the potential staleness. In many ways, this is the story of the latest installment of the Ghostbusters franchise, although this pizza has had a few jalepenos thrown on for good measure. It's been 27 years since the last cinematic instalment of the Ghostbusters franchise, and audiences finally get to see the proton packs blaze away in all their sizzling glory once again. The twist in this film is the much discussed nixing of the original male Ghostbusters characters in favour of an all new of female line-up.

Helmed by director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, The Heat), the movie, eschews the continuity of the previous films, and the two critically acclaimed animated series from the nineties, in favour of a new narrative that ignores all that has gone before while dragging us safely back into familiar territory. Replacing the original line-up of male Saturday Night Live alumni, are an equally funny group of female comedians drawn from the same show. Added to the convention flipping is Chris Hemsworth, who appears as the useless but hunky 'himbo' receptionist whose main function is to act as eye candy for the 'Busters', as well as to get caught up in events in a way that recalls Rick Moranis' character in the original movies. While the characters are different, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones portray a similar group of off beat scientists who desperately want their research into the supernatural to be taken seriously while seeking to save New York from a world shattering supernatural apocalypse. If it sounds familiar that's because it is and enjoyably so. What are the jalapenos on this reheated pizza you may ask? Well for some it  be the uber-hunky addition of Chris Hemsworth but for others it might be the sparkling, witty and quirky performances of McCarthy and Co who also provide an element of eye candy for the thinking man and possibly for many that don't. For GB geeks, another new pizza topping in this outing is the array of new gadgets the teams creates that sit in their armory alongside the more familiar ones of old. No matter the gender, these 'Busters' love their toys.

While the movie is determined to be a version of  Ghostbusters that stands alone in it's own continuity, the film tries desperately to remind us that it is still part of the 80's-90's franchise. You may be the 30 something fan who watched every show, read every comic, had every figure and spent your holidays with your mum's vacuum cleaner strapped to your back and mourn the erasing of your childhood heroes. Don't worry, they are not far away. With frequent cameos by original cast members, even including a bust of the late Harold Ramis, its pedigree is constantly thrust at the audience in case we have forgotten it's the third installment of a popular but long dormant franchise. If we feel that it's not kosher with out the original GB team, they hope to convince us otherwise by turning up like a sprinkling of turkey bacon on a cheese pizza. Ironically Bill Murray, who played the cynical Peter Venkman in the original films, takes on the role of an equally cynical skeptic who publicly challenges the credibility of the Ghostbusters with dire consequences. If all this fails, we get to see a version of the Marshmellow Man and the return of Slimer, the only continuing character to survive all incarnations of  Ghostbusters franchise.

Plot wise, the movie safely follows the basic formula of the previous films and reproduces much of the same iconography as the original series. The Ghosbusters must work with and against the City Council to foil a massive supernatural plot centered around New York which threatens the world as we know it. Far from a bad thing, it reminds us of all the fun and silly things that we loved about feasting on the original movies. With proton packs, witty dialogue, ghouls, cranky mayors, a giant monster and an impending apocalypse laid on with thick SFX cheese, this is a reheated dish that is still delicious after all these years. Busting still makes me feel good the third time around.

The Love of Christ: Letting the Genie Out of the Bottle

In The Beginning
In the first part of the modern era the Christian faith burst onto the cultural scene from what seemed like a disastrous beginning and rose to a point where it was the official religion for the once hostile Roman Empire. The defining elements of this faith were 

• That the Creator God had entered human form in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew whose followers saw him as God's promised savior and king. 
• He taught that the Law God had given to the Jewish people could be summed up in the two commands, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind' and  ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’
• He was executed by the Romans and that He went willingly to death, offering Himself as the final atoning sacrifice that would allow humanity to reconnect with the divine.
• That He rose from the dead and now is present with God the Father 
• That He will return again one day in judgment over the living and the dead, examining each on how they have followed his faith and lived out his commands of love, after which the creation will finally be set free from the bondage that evil forces have had over it.

So Christians went out seeking to follow Christ's example of extravagant love, freeing those in bondage and speaking out against those who showed injustice to their fellow humanity.  Though, as time went on, tribalism in the church began to take hold. Starting originally as a cultural dispute between Jewish and Gentile Christians, it soon began to spread further a field to others, as different understandings around the nature of the incarnation of Jesus took hold, the message got lost and the fights began. Did Christ become divine at His birth or baptism? Did he exist before his birth as a human or did he only appear to be human and was really a spirit being? Were the divine parts of His nature at one with his human nature or were they separate? Was He the same being as the Father God or was He actually a separate angelic entity. Was He even human at all, or was He even divine? These questions began to be asked because if you were going to die for your faith, you needed to know what that faith was and how it was the same as the person being executed next to you. Christian love should have prevailed over this, but the forces of this world were at work.

Doing the Splits
For the early church already finding itself divided from Judaism, schism among its members was an already a sad possibility. Maintaining unity while actively seeking to discourage those that caused division was never an easy thing. Some, believing they were carry on the leadership of Christ's disciples, sometimes disagreed with others who were also considered to hold authority. Charlatans and opportunists were already appearing to take advantage of the good nature of the young movement and looked to lead it in directions that were directly opposed to to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This didn't go unaddressed in the letters and other writing that would in time become collected together as The New Testament. The Gospel of John is very clear about what is important in relation to understanding who Jesus is and the nature of his being. In the Gospel of John it says, 

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it................. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (The Gospel According to John 1: 1-5, 9-14).'

Here the writer is laying out the idea that the origins of Jesus Christ didn't begin in the womb but stretched back into the very essence of the Eternal Divinity. He was a major player in creation and now He inhabited it. This idea of Christ being eternal divinity, God's Word made flesh, is carried on into the 1st Letter of John, which traditionally the church has attributed to the same author. Here it becomes a rallying point for those who are seeking to discern what teaching and which persons truly represent Christ against those that seek to deceive, 

'Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 John 4: 1-3)'

For John, the most dangerous thing that could take hold of the church was a belief that denied that the divine Word of God, the means by which the unseen Heavenly Father had interacted with his creation since the beginning of time, had not been born into human history as the man Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus was merely a man or even a spiritual being that merely looked like a man, the Christian message was undermined. God could dwell with in his creation, his creation was good and he loved it enough to die for it. Human life is precious, human life matters, Human life is of eternal value and the way we treat others counts. The way of this world says that someone has to die to pay the piper, the way of Jesus says that if someone has to die to appease the murderous spirit of this world,
 it will God giving himself freely. God is love and he loves us, warts and all.

'This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.  No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. (1 John 4: 10-12).'

Dying For the Here and Now
This amazing cocktail of love is the good news of the christian message. We are agents of God's love who share this love with others because He loved us first. In fact it is by our love that people will know us and by which God will recognise us as His people. It seems simple but as history rolled on the same old enemies began to rear their heads. In my own life time God's people seem to have been recognised by their doctrine, their assigned list of beliefs. Often it didn't matter how much this lead to discrimination, oppression, hate and intolerance, what counted was that the persons doctrine was perceived to be right. If this was the case these things could be over looked no matter where it lead the holder of such beliefs. In fact if your life was a mess and you were suffering, it was probably your own fault because you were following the wrong set of beliefs. You  probably deserved everything you got. Maybe your faith wasn't strong enough, that's if you had one at all. For many Christians it was belief in a right set of doctrines that guaranteed entrance into heaven and not a belief in the divine power of love that would empower you as a child of the God to transform the world here and now. They forget it was in the 'here and now' that Jesus came and dwelt in order to the redeem the whole 'here and now' from the destruction that a lack of love was bringing upon it.

Street Freak Fear
This has lead to what I call 'street freak fear', the moment when a street preacher approaches you and asks whether you are a Christian. If the answer is in the affirmative, they will begin to tell you why your not and why they need to save you. Loving God and your neighbour is no longer enough, there are levels of Christianity beginning with what ever doctrinal slant the preacher holds to and where ever they see as you sitting theologically. Look out if you belong to another religion all together, you are hell bound no questions asked, despite the fact that Christians believe that Christ is the ultimate judge. Love has seemingly disappeared as the true defining principle of Christ's followers and has been replaced by an adherents to a set of propositions. There was even a time, long after the Romans ceased burning Christians at the stake, that the followers of Christ started burning each other over issues of doctrine. I'm not suggesting that we should turn our backs on the basic tenants of the Apostolic Tradition, only that Christ's command to love comes first in our dealings with others. Instead of being the salt that gives flavour to the world, we are at risk of becoming pickled in our own self righteous juices. Is this how Christ meant it to be?

Release the Genie!
Looking back through history, through reformations, schisms between East and West, inquisitions and crusades, I think it's time for us to return to our first love, Christ and His sacrificial passion for the 'last, the lost and the least'. We need to let the genie out of the bottle and unleash the lavish love of Christ on a world that needs it more than ever. When we meet others, no matter who they are, their well being needs to be our main concern. In fact, the way we treat them is the way we treat Jesus (1 John 4: 19-21). It's always seemed ironic to me that the church has fixated on all kinds of things that it has perceived to be the greatest of sins, even to the point of social isolation and execution, and has ignored the very things Christ said would be the issue in question at the last judgement. We struggle with common law marriage, same sex relationships and evolutionary theory but openly tolerate greed, social inequality, sexism, racism and gossip. Something seems to have been lost over the years.

Nail Your Colours!
If the just, merciful and loving treatment of those around us is the ultimate hallmark of a Christian, why don't we nail our colors to that mast? Why don't we make that our goal? Then we will truly be salt and light in our tiny corner of the cosmos. Only Christ's love has the power to transform our world, when we come to see all humanity as beloved brothers and sisters redeemed by Christ's blood and not enemies to be crushed. We need to let love flow freely and to all, no matter who they are, because in doing so we are showing Christ how much we love him. We need to be the people who cause the vulnerable to breath a sigh of relief in our presence and the ones with a vested interest in suffering to flee or change their hearts. Christ has called us to be the ones who work with him to piece back the broken pieces of the human race into a beautiful mosaic of spirit filled family, at one with its creator and one another. Release the genie now!

The Killer Gorilla: The Role of the Ape in Popular Culture (Part 1)

They lurk through the halls of haunted houses and zoos alike. Fearsome brutes or lovable friends, these creatures have been with us since our ancestors first emerged from the trees and headed out onto the savannah. They are our hairy doppelgängers that roam the jungles of our wild places and haunt our myths and stories.  Like dinosaurs, humans both young and old have an enduring love affair with great apes, unlike those prehistoric dragons, these real life monsters still walk among us.

Both a figure of terror and joy, the great apes, along with other primates, holds a position in popular culture closely akin to clowns. They are the not quite humans that, depending on the story or context, can make you laugh with 'monkey business' or tear out your throat when you least expects it. Apes can be real or people in costumes, but either way they are not to be trusted. They are 'almost' humans, or masked humans, and like clowns, they are unpredictable in nature. It's no coincidence that from time to time clowns, chimpanzees, as well as monkeys, are often portrayed together. They are agents of chaos that amuse by their disregard for convention and mimicry of the human condition. The violent action of a clown towards another is funny, the same action towards a normal person could be injurious. The 'aping' of human behaviour by a monkey or small chimpanzee can be amusing, though when carried out by a gorilla, who decides to 'go ape', it can be lethal. 

Out side of the realms of biological science, monkeys and apes are generally seen by most cultures to be one and the same. Chimps, orang-utans and gorillas are just big tailless monkeys. In some cultures apes were believed to be men that had been cursed by the god's to be less than human. The Indonesians thought that the orang-utans were the descendants of  people who had left human society and had walked of into the forest. Greek mythology mentions two forest creatures, the Ceropes, who were famous for their mischief making in the ancient world. Some legends tell how Zeus turned them into monkeys others describe how Hercules tied them to a pole by their feet and carried them hanging upside down after they stole his weapons. It was only when they couldn't stop laughing at his posterior that he joined in the mirth and let them go. India and China also have their own monkey deities, Hanuman and Sun Wukong, both known to have been mischief makers and who various times required a level of forced restraint to be placed upon them in their journey towards spiritual maturity. Both were also described as being formidable warriors.

The concept of the ape as a figure of fear can be traced back to the  Edgar Allan Poe's 1841 story, Murders in the Rue Morgue. It tells the story of two women who are found murderer inside their home by an unknown, unseen killer. Having seen nothing, all the witnesses claim to have heard someone speaking in a strange language that none of them understand. Assuming the killer to have been a foreigner, it comes as a surprise when the perpetrator turns out to be an escaped orang-utan with a cut throat razor that has killed the women. Climbing in through the window of the women's apartment, it has tried to mimics it's owners daily shaving routine, slit one woman's throat and strangled the other in the excitement. Here it is the ape as the 'almost human' that has lead to a lethal out come. The ape that can innocently 'ape' human behaviour can also lose control and become a super strong, savage killer when threatened. Coming face to face with a Gorilla, a name often used generically for any large ape regardless of species, could be a meeting of two like beings or a confrontation with a manlike monster that could snap your spine like a pretzel. 

The phenomenon of the orang-utan being mistaken as a foreigner also resonates with the common use of ape or monkey being used as a racial slur. From the myth that apes and monkeys were men who had been cursed to the evolutionary ideas that culminate in Charles Darwin's 'On the Origins of Species (1859),' the ape was seen as something less than a civilised human. If modern man had evolved from apes then perhaps there were people who were further down the evolutionary path. Such people would be  ripe for oppression  and someone to be feared due to their primitive passions. In the eyes of white supremacists at the turn of last century, and possibly many who considered themselves to be fair minded and moderate, it was no mistake that both African slaves and gorillas hailed from the same continent. Both were products of the jungle and thus had a connection with each other that wasn't shared with other 'more advanced and civilised races'. It stood to reason that the African was closer to the beast and needed to be tamed, less he 'go ape', cause havoc and run off with the nearest white women. Thus the ape became a cipher, consciously or unconsciously, for the white man's fear of the foreigner in his midst, especially the enslaved men of Africa that threaten to unleash the wild passion of the jungle on polite white society. A prime example of this can be seen in the first screen adaptation of 'Tarzan of the Apes (1918) where Jane is stolen by a native tribesman instead of a great ape, as in the original novel. It may have been changed for very practical reasons but the choice of replacement is telling. Whether it is an ape or an African native, the film makers saw them as interchangeable; both represented the primal savagery of the jungle that wanted nothing more than to steal the beautiful white woman away from her people. In this way the ape comes to signify the 'other', the things that lurk outside the respectable centre of society and are feared by those with in that centre, It stands to reason that the ape would take its place in the growing pantheon of horror icons, vampires, werewolves and Frankenstein monster among them.

As the 20th century began to unfold, the gorilla emerged front and centre in the parade of scary things that were being rolled out by the popular culture of the time to thrill a populace trying to recover from a terrible world war. Whether at the cinema, the circus or in comic books, the ape had climbed into a position were it had taken its place as king.

To be continued

Batman L Superman: The Dawn of Bromance

Recently I went to see the much awaited Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. I kept waiting for someone to turn on the lights so I could see what was going on with in the movie. I kept waiting for the familiar triumphant fanfare to announce Superman's rise to victory and his transcendence as the Man of Steel. I kept waiting for the familiar thrill as Batman finally assembled the necessary bat-weapons to defeat the on coming threat. What I got was darkness, no fanfare of victory, a Batman misguidedly trying to kill the good and a lingering malaise reminiscent of Good Friday. I could only hope that Sunday's a'comin. Hollywood couldn't just take these icons of truth and justice and leave them as jaded and cynical parodies of their true selves. They just couldn't. It was The Last Temptation of Christ all over again. So in good evangelical style, to reassure myself that all was right in heaven and earth, I decided to go back to the text, not the apocryphal tales spun by the merchants of revisionism in recent decades, but the original meeting of the 'The World's Finest' by writer Edmond Hamilton and artist Curt Swan.

It was May-June 1952. Harry S Truman was in his last term as U.S. President and the Korean War was moving into its third and final year. The University of Tennessee admitted its first Afro-American student and Queen Elizabeth II was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth. In the world of letters, Wernher von Braun begins his series of articles laying the foundation for the up coming space race and in Superman no. 76, the Man of Steel meets the Caped Crusader for the first time.

In Gotham City, Batman's war on crime has been so successful that he finds the time to take a well earned rest. Over in Metropolis, Superman has put the finishing touches on the city's new Hall of Learning and has finally reached the start of his scheduled vacation. And there is no better way for two weary crime fighters to unwind than in the relaxing atmosphere of a luxury cruise ship. 

On a cruise anything can happen. Regular routines and relationships are left behind and new ones are formed. With Robin and Jimmy Olsen out of the picture, Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne find themselves sharing a cabin, and the scene is set for one of the greatest bromances in history to flourish. When a dockside Lois is caught in the flames of a fiery jewel heist, both heroes jump to her rescue only to catch each other in their cabin changing into their super-alter egos. Between these two men, a bond of trust immediately begins to grow,  seeking to solve the mystery of the jewel heist together. Though not all is smooth sailing for this new super couple. One thing that can often threaten a budding bromance is the presence of an attractive woman. Instead of staying on shore, Lois Lane has also joined the cruise in pursuit of the unknown jewel thief and jealousies flare as she over looks the Man of Steel for the tall dark and mysterious Batman. Though this rift in their relationship doesn't last long once the crook is captured. When the ship finally return to shore, the beautiful Miss Lane turns cougar, finally choosing the Boy Wonder as her next dinner date. The bromance is safe and the future of this occasional crime fighting partnership is assured. Thus endeth the lesson.

As I closed the holy text, I reflected on the apocryphal Batman V Superman movie once again. Gone is the mutual respect and camaraderie, as the ageing Batman decides that his only recourse against this seemingly all powerful, bat-critical, new kid alien on the block, is to impale him on his long glowing kryptonite spear. It is then that Superman seemingly mentions Batman's Mum. How low could things go? Gone was the bromance, replaced by beef cake distrust and macho rivalry, shot down by an exploding kryptonite bat-bullet and talk of Mums. Where had the love gone? 

One thing that can always heal a broken bromance is the persuasive voice of a beautiful woman or, in this case, a trinity; the Mother, the Daughter-in-law and the Spirit of Truth. As the two titans descend into mortal combat, it is Martha Kent, Lois Lane and Wonder Woman that intercede and help the rivals to see each other for who they truly are, muscly men in capes who stand for truth, justice and beating up the criminally insane. Before the movie eventually gets to the business end, the bromance is back, with the Dark Knight a bonafide super-fan and the Man of Steel a true bat-liever. This bromance was not man-love at first sight, but one forged in battle and birthed from some heavy duty man wrestling.

Now I understand that in reality this movie was a mash up of two extremely grim comic series, 1986's The Dark Knight Returns and 1992's The Death of Superman, hiding behind a deliberately sensationalist Hollywood title (which makes as much sense as Luke Skywalker V Han Solo to the uninitiated in the ways of the DC dark side) but it is also presented as a launch pad for a Justice League movie series. Please may the heresy cease, the grace and mercy flow, the bromance flourish and the agro saved for the theatrically psychotic, lest I be forced to pull out my Super Friends DVD's to remember when superheroes were a celebration of hope rather than a lament over society's lost innocence. It's Friday but hopefully, Sunday's a'comin. Amen

The Massacre of the Holy Innocents: Humanities Guilt

Amongst all the joy and celebrations of the Christmas season, a tragic story lurks amongst the tales of wise men, angels and shepherds that goes unknown by many both with in and outside the church. The Massacre of the Holy Innocents is a story found in the Gospel of St Matthew (80-90 AD), squeezed in between the flight of the holy family to Egypt and their return to Judea after the death of King Herod the Great. The King James Version puts it thus,

'Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.  Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,  In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not (Matthew 2: 16-17).

 Here we come face to face with a ancient despot who would rather kill a group of babies based on the stargazing and ancient oracles of mystics just in case one of them in the future may challenge him for his throne. Even worse, here was a man who would do so to thwart the plans of the Judah's own God, in case those plans didn't feature him. Such a terrible act was never forgotten by the church. These infants were counted among the first Christian martyrs who died for Christ unknowingly. In the Western Church their deaths have been commemorated on the 28th of December, on the day known as Childermas. However in the modern Christmas, which tends to focus on the more child friendly elements of the season, the Massacre of these Holy Innocents is over looked. and one of the deeper meanings of the celebration is lost,

As in much of his account of the birth of Christ, Matthew gives us few details out side of the bare bones of the story. We are not told who the slaughtered children were or how many were killed. This had to be left to the fertile imagination of the early church to fill in the details. The remains of two child saints, St Sicarius of Bethlehem and St Memorius, are still venerated as victims of the massacre how ever the authenticity of such claims doesn't go unquestioned today, with the likelihood of such remains surviving intact until the time of the early church's interest in relics being extremely unlikely.  According to  Wikipedia, that font of all knowledge, numbers such as 14,000, 64,000 and 144,000 were given by different church traditions, the later of which seems to be derived from John's vision in Rev 7: 4, suggesting that these numbers are more likely theological than actual. However given the size of the Bethlehem population at the time, approx 1000, according to William Barclay, the amount of children two and under may have been anything from twenty to thirty babies. Other  sources suggest that archaeological excavation of ancient Bethlehem shows that the population may have been a low as 300, suggesting a figure closer to six children in the age range of two and under (Gordan Franz, biblicalarcheology.org). Still the massacre of six children is a terrible event, just as the loss of one can shatter the world of a parent. 

The next mention of the Massacre of the Holy Innocents is found in a book with the long winded title of The Protoevangelium of James. Written about 140 AD, this book, which begins with an account of Mary's infancy and childhood, draws its version of the birth of Christ from the canonical gospels. Here it is not just the life of Christ that is in danger but the life of John the Baptist as well. Included in the killing is John's father, Zechariah, who is slain  in the forecourt of the Jerusalem Temple after refusing to reveal the location of his infant son. 

It wasn't until around 400 AD that a mention of the slaughter appears in a non-Christian source. The historian Macrobius in his Saturnalia says, "when Augustus had heard, that among the children within two years of age, which Herod king of the Jews commanded to be slain in Syria, his own son had been killed, he said: 'It is better to be Herod's hog than his son.' (Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.f.11). However this passage seems to confuse the massacre with Herod's murder of his own son which was a separate event with an identical motive. 

It would seem that with such support from ancient texts that Massacre of the Holy Innocents would be generally accepted as an historical fact, however this is far from the case. Although it would seem that the Protoevangelium of James is an early second source for an account of the massacre, it is heavily dependant on the Gospel of St Matthew and therefore is not an independent account of the incident. Even the seemingly independent account of Macrobius and its mention of the broader area of Syria and not specifically Bethlehem, cannot be considered a reliable evidence for the event. The confusion of the whole account and the four centuries between the events described and Macrobius' work, render this passage an unreliable source. Although a non-Christian, it is not inconceivable that Macrobius had become familiar with the story of the massacre through accounts told by the  adherents of the popular Christian religion and that had it had entered the popular consciousness. 

The main point that leaves many historians sceptical is that, besides The Gospel of St Matthew, no other contemporary witnesses mention the massacre in Bethlehem and it surrounds. This leads them to speculate that maybe the whole event was a sacred creation, a bit of parable writing, to try and compare Jesus with Moses, another survivor of a fearful kings infanticidal intentions. Despite such a act being totally in line with Herod's other brutal acts to protect his kingship, with only Matthew's word to go by and no other contemporary independent sources to back the story up, some want to place it in the category of story created to teach theological thought rather than historical reality.

There is a tragic twist to all this speculation. Some suggest that in a world where children's rights were virtually non-existent and a king could slaughter six infant peasant subjects with out impunity, such an event would probably go unrecorded. This was a world where children were property and infant mortality was not uncommon. A Roman father was entitled to let his new born child die if unwanted and the Greeks in Sparta regularly practised infanticide as birth control (Franz). In such a world, why would the death of a handful of children warrant a mention in the annals of Roman Imperial history. 

If anything the ambiguity around the historicity of the event is probably the most poignant element of the whole affair. Whether or not the event happened will never be answered for secular historians because in the bigger scheme of things it didn't matter. The account serves as a reminder of all the atrocities that have been visited on the helpless and powerless in fear by those welding power. It is fitting that we find it told in the birth story of the one who called for a new way of seeing things, where the powerless are kings and the tyrants are in last place. In the kingdom of Jesus the slaughtered babes of Bethlehem and all other times, sit in the places of honour and look down on us, calling us each to make a difference so the vision of Christ's kingdom of love can become a reality where ever we find ourselves.

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

Revelation 21:4 KJV

Star Wars: The Revenge of Rumplestiltskin?

Jodo Kast wandering the purgatorial wastelands of non-canonicity.

Recently I had the pleasure of watching Shrek Forever After with my children on TV. This modern spin on traditional fairy tales deals with an ogre, Shrek, who becomes disenchanted with his settled, domesticated life and longs for the days before he met Princess Fiona and when the villagers were afraid of him. Into this pops that traditional fairy tale rogue, Rumpelstiltskin, who offers Shrek one day of his old ogre life in return for a day in his past, preferably one he doesn't remember. This he does and soon to Shrek's horror, he discovers that 'Stiltskin' has taken the day he was born. From then on it's a race for Shrek to work his way through an alternate time line and share loves true kiss before he vanishes from time altogether. This is a world where he never saved Fiona from her tower, fell in love and had a family. It's a world where his friends don't know him and people have followed a different life path from the one from which we are familiar. It's a clever way of mixing things up and allowing the writers to try new things with established characters. Sufi e to say, for Shrek, things do go back to normal.

When I was five years old my world was shaken by another modern fairy tale . My parents took me to see  the latest blockbuster movie, Star Wars, and i was never the same again. In the wash up of this amazing piece of The Empire Strikes Back was released, I had immersed myself in the world of Star Wars comics. And so I was inducted into the world of the Extended Star Wars Universe,the place were the story continued after the end credits had finished. Soon there were holiday specials, novels, storybook records and radio plays. Eventually there were even spin off TV movies and cartoon series, but by the mid 1980's all had seemingly gone quiet as we waited for the promised prequels and sequels that we soon thought would never arrive. In 1991 the novel Heir the the Empire by Timothy Zahn appeared along with the comic series the Dark Empire and the Star Wars Universe seemed to be grinding to life. As with many Star Wars fans I soon threw myself into this 'Extended Universe' and lapped up the continuing adventures of Han, Chewy, Luke, Leia, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. This was a universe that was expanding in all directions and I loved it. Even when new prequels finally emerged, this extended universe was gobbled up into a carefully mapped continuity. Last I heard, even the old comic series from my childhood was being carefully worked in and discrepancies retconned or worked around. One mighty Star Wars Universe was rising triumphant, a world of it's own with history, mythology and a mighty story to tell. Though one thing was still to come to pass, the three promised sequels, that was until late last year when the announcement that all true Star Wars fans had been waiting for was trumpeted forth from the highest minaret of the Jedi Temple. Finally the promise of 1977 was coming to pass but what story would it tell and where would it fit in the overarching history of the Star Wars Universe? The was that it wouldn't.

To cut along story short, the writers of the new trilogy wanted a fresh canvas  to work with, unimpeded by the shackles of an established continuity. To this my head says fair enough, but my heart says 'Nooooooo, it's not true!', as I see loved story lines and characters disappear into non-canon obscurity. Fictional characters now become officially non-canonical, which sounds like a kind of purgatory for imaginary people. Poor bounty hunter Jodo Kast; imagine being not only fictional and dead but dead in an obsolete story line. Sounds worse than being digested over a thousand years in the stomach of the mighty Sarlach. On the bright side it, looks as if Chewie is no longer dead though sadly, Boba Fett may still be. All bets are off.

I'm not saying that I'm not excited by the release of the new trilogy, I am. It's just that I need to try and ignore all that I thought I knew and accepted about the Star Wars Universe. As the action begins to unfold and the new continuity becomes apparent, I wonder how hard it will be to see this as the new normal.  How hard will it be not to wonder 'which character did a deal with Rumpelstiltskin and changed the present?" Already my bets are on Han. At least he gets Chewie back. That one element alone should be enough to win me over, even at the cost of Jodo Kast. At least the saga continues. May the force of new continuity be with you, always.

PS
Having now seen the film, I'm pretty sure it was Han that made the deal with 'ol' Stiltskin', probably played by Warwick Davis. And yes, he lost the day he was born, and no, his son isn't any less of a darkside brat in this alternate reality. Enjoy the saga.

Doc Holliday and the Three Wise Men

I always thought a great name for a festive season rock band would be Doc Holliday and the Three Wise Men. either that or it would make a great name for the ultimate Western/Sword and Sandal mash up movie that I suspect only the Italians could truly make. The final show down with the Clantons, King Herod's special hit squad, in the Nativity Coral would be an amazing spectacle of slings and arrows would conjure up all the grandeur of Quo Vadis with the surreal staring and eye  twitching of The Good the Bad and the Ugly. And as Lee Van Cleef's consumptive Doc Holliday coughs off into the sunset on his camel, the Magi are free to present their gifts in the the now peaceful town of Bethlehem to the new born king. The last thing we see, as the 'FINE' appears before the closing credits, is Livio Lorenzon's King Herod in the capital, cursing the heavens at the news of the Clanton Squads demise. As awesome as it would be, I feel that this movie may never see the light of day. Human myth making is an amazing phenomena but  this scenario may 'jump the shark' just a little too far to ever become a reality.

Never the less, both the Three Wise Men and Doc Holliday have seen their own share of legend and mythology laid over the known or assumed facts of their lives. Often this is the problem, human beings need to know things about their heroes and when the facts are sketchy or unremarkable we make things up. The beauty of this is that our heroes of the past become the icons we need  for the here and now and not merely long dead mere mortals of bygone eras.

My first introduction to Doc Holliday was in the movie 'My Darling Clementine (1946)' starring Victor Mature as Doc Holliday and Henry Fonda as Wyatt Earp. Here Doc Holliday was a surgeon come gunfighter who valiantly fights his consumptive way through the film along side his buddy, Marshall Wyatt Earp. We meet his attractive love from Boston, the genteel Clementine Carter, played by the lovely Cathy Downs. We watch the long and tense gunfight at the OK Corral get slugged out dramatically over a minute of the film. We see the sickly Doc Holliday fall, slain by a Clanton bullet, before the grip of tuberculosis could take him, The last we see of him alive is the good Doctor falling to the ground, his white handkerchief caught against the gate he was sheltering behind, blowing in the wind, a powerful symbol of his surrender to death.

I was later surprised to find out that Doc Holliday wasn't a surgeon but a dentist,  His beautiful girl friend was actually known as 'Big Nose Kate' and the gunfight was only 30 seconds long and took place in a vacant block near by the OK Corral and not with in it. So much for the dramatic ballet of gun play that Hollywood would lead us to believe. As for Doc's blazing demise during the gunfight, it actually took place 6 years later. The movie may not be historically accurate but it paints a more exciting picture of one of the most famous showdowns in the old west.

When it comes to the Three Wise Men, the stories told well and truly out shine the known facts.The only reference in the Bible to these figures is in vs 1-11 in the 2nd chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. from this we learn that they were 'Magi' from the east that had followed a star to visit a new born King. Magi were originally Persian Zoroastrian priests who had a particular interest in the stars with the name coming to refer to astrologers in general. With them they brought three gifts to present to the royal child once they had found him, gold, frankincense and myrrh, After arriving in the capital Jerusalem they seek audience with King Herod and his advisers,  Learning that the Hebrew scriptures mention the birth of the awaited messiah in Bethlehem, the Magi follow the star again until it stops over the place where Jesus and his family were residing. An angel then warns them in a dream not to report back to King Herod and they return home via a different route. The Bible gives us no names, no country of origin, what they were riding or even the number of wise men. In fact most of what we know about them seem to have been added to the stories later in the retelling.

As with most revered figures, the lack of information was soon compensated for, with traditions maybe historical but most likely legendary, coming into the stories of the faithful to spice up the story with details. One of the problems with the wise men was that they were presented at best as educated astrologers and at worst magicians or sorcerers. To the early Christians this may have been a difficult thing to stomach so the sanitising of the Magi had to begin. St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Ephesians, written in the early 2nd century suggests that at the arrival of the Star of Bethlehem all magic in the world ceased.  It can be assumed that many saw this as the catalyst for the interest of the Magi and that they were now seeking the new source of power in the presence of the Christ child. So now longer were the Magi occult users following their forbidden astrological arts to seek out the new born King but dis empowered figures seeking the new truth. This was a more palatable image for the faithful but the transformation was far from complete.

In the early 3rd century, the christian writer Tertullian  stated that the Magi were actually kings, So astrology aside, these men were actually world leaders who were acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as the true ruling power. Caesar and Herod may have missed the boat but others had not, at the very beginning Christ was acknowledged by the nations as their King of Kings. Christians could stand firm in their faith that he was the true power in the empire. By the number of gifts the number of the kings was deduced to be three although some traditions suggest as many as twelve. By the time the Armenian Infancy Gospel was written around 600 AD, the names of  Gasper, Melchior and Balthazar had been given to the Three Kings and the transformation was complete. The vague shadowy figures of the Magi had become the very regal Three Kings that we know from carols, annual nativity scenes, and cards riding into history on their camels. They would grace the palace of Herod and the lowly cattle shed in Bethlehem to take their place amongst the saints and martyrs of the church.
Christians could look to these Royal figures and see, that just like themselves, even the Kings of the Orient recognised the true King when their own kings possibly did not.  Christ was Lord of beggar and monarch alike, the true King of Kings. I suspect many Christians today see them as wise men of the ancient world who accepted Christ as Lord when many so called wise men of our age argue the against the very existence of God. For the modern church it is their wisdom and insight into divine truth that is their great, enduring virtue,

Whether it be Doc Holliday or the Three Wise Men, we all have a tendency to look back at our important figures of history with the glasses of the present. Mere mortals of the past can become powerful symbols of the present when we project our current concerns and values onto their cultural memory. Morally complex and violent adventurers can become symbols of law and order in a simpler but wilder time, an important thing for a society recovering from war and seeking stability in the face great loss. Controversial masters of the mystic arts can become the champions of traditional faith and wisdom in an increasingly secular society. This approach may display a cavalier attitude towards the factual details of history but it enables our history to resonate with the present in deep and meaningful ways. We look back to answer questions of the present, to be inspired and strengthened by the past, and to look to a brighter future.Who knows you or I might one day become legendary figures, the mundane and the ordinary facts of our lives transformed into a grand epic of operatic proportion to serve the needs of a future age. And if this happens hopefully they'll make me better looking with killer abs. only the future will tell.

As for my movie idea, I don't think it will ever go ahead despite the continuing popularity of the Three Kings and Doc Holliday. This won't stop me from dreaming and hoping though, as I see the four characters becoming drawn together. An example of this is the fact that the current Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi got to play Balthazar in the recent film The Nativity Story (2006) and Doctor Who was mistaken for Doc Holliday in the 1966 story The Gunfighters, not to mention that he even has his own annual Christmas 'holiday' special. This is far from being a coincidence, so for me the circle of geek is now complete.