Blog

There is a thread of thought that scoffs images, stories, and other communications which tell a story in a historically inaccurate way.  Those who follow this thought pattern would tear apart Pieter Brueghel II’s Census at Bethlehem completed in 1605. I spent some time studying this painting last fall while in the Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht, The Netherlands.  This painting is referring to the Biblical and historical account where Caesar Augustus called for a census to be taken of the people in the Roman Empire.  People had to return to where their family originated.  In the Biblical account this is why Mary and Joseph, who lived in Nazereth, were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born.  Bethlehem is a Jewish city from the time of the Roman Empire right?  Well not in Brueghal’s image.  His Bethlehem is complete with medieval Belgian city, a Northern European castle, snow on the ground with a snow ball fight, a Christian church (before Christ was born?), and a wild boar (definitely not Kosher) being slaughtered.  Not quite the accurate picture of Bethlehem as we imagine it, however, consider the original audience of the image.  Consider that the audience could relate to the setting, and that most who viewed the picture had probably never traveled very far from their home city in their life.  Without pictures of what far away places look like, one tends to consider everywhere the same as where one is.  Also, the story takes upon itself the life of the common man.  The story becomes integrated into the the 17th century Dutch life and not a pious thing above their reach.  Is the story more authentic* when it is historically accurate but unrelated to the culture in which it is told, or is it more authentic* when it is told within a culture taking on meaning that those viewing the image can understand?

*I am using the word authentic and not the word accurate.