The Star of Bethlehem

Many Christmas crib scenes show the Holy Family surrounded by oxen, asses, shepherds and kings, with the Star of Bethlehem shining down from above. The star is referenced in the account of the Nativity given in Matthew’s gospel, according to which “wise men from the east” had seen the star that announced the birth of the new “King of the Jews” and made their way to Jerusalem to ask for further directions.

The New Testament gives two accounts of the Nativity, in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and they are very different. In fact, there are hardly any points of agreement between them! Many efforts have been made to reconcile the two accounts, but the attempts often seem extremely forced and lacking in credibility.

So either Matthew or Luke must be wrong, or perhaps both are – after all, the authors of the works (whoever they were, and they were not called either Matthew or Luke!) were not eye witnesses and their prime concern seems to have been to tell stories that fitted supposed ancient prophecies.

However, there are features of the stories that might just have had a basis in reality, although this is more probable in the case of “Matthew” than of “Luke”. One of these features is the Star of Bethlehem.

It has been thought that references to a star being followed suggest a comet, and various suggestions have been made as to which comet this might have been. However, although a comet has a tail that might suggest an arrow pointing in a certain direction, it would not have “stood over the place where the young child was”, which is claimed in Matthew 2:9. 

This is also the case with any other sort of astronomical event, such as a planetary conjunction or a supernova, so that part of the account can be easily dismissed as fiction.

A supernova is probably the best candidate for being the star, and there is evidence that there was such an event at about the right time. Chinese astronomers during the Han Dynasty had recorded the sudden appearance of a bright star that lasted for several weeks until it faded from view.

A supernova is the explosion of a star that is considerably larger than our own Sun. If one were to explode relatively close to our solar system, then it would outshine everything else in the night sky and even be visible during daylight hours, even to the naked eye.

If a supernova had been observed in China, then it would certainly have been seen in Palestine. Just such an event was awaited by scholars who knew, from the Book of Numbers (24:17), that “there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth”. 

Not many miles to the east of Jerusalem is the Dead Sea, on the shores of which lived a Jewish sect known as the Essenes. These were zealots who were desperately awaiting the arrival of the Messiah who would free the Jewish lands from the yoke of oppression under the Roman Empire. A supernova explosion was all they needed to get extremely excited about the prospect of their hopes being fulfilled.

So were the wise men Essene zealots from not very far away? One thing to remember is that for “wise men” to be interested in the birth of a Messiah, they must have been Jewish – the idea that oriental “magi” would have made a long journey to the west to bring “gold, frankincense and myrrh” does sound extremely fanciful. 

There are certainly elements of Matthew’s Nativity account that do not hang together, but the Star of Bethlehem may be something that the author of the gospel got right.

© John Welford

The shaky foundations of Christianity

The more I look at the religion known as Christianity, the more I realise that it is far from secure, in theological/philosophical terms, having been built on very shaky foundations.

The Messiah – Really?

At the heart of Christianity is the preacher from Galilee known as Jesus, to whom posterity has added the name “Christos”, meaning “the anointed one”. That is the Greek word for the concept, the Hebrew word being “Messiah”.

At the time that Jesus was alive the land of Palestine was under Roman rule. Most Jews were content to knuckle under and get on with their lives as best they could, but there were some who fervently wanted to change things and had high hopes that a new king would arrive who would lead his people to overthrow the Romans. Anointing with oil only applied to kings, which is why the Messiah had to be a king.

The early Christians were convinced that Jesus was the anointed one, but they saw the anointing as being a heavenly rather than earthly event. He had been anointed before he was born and therefore fitted the bill. That concept might raise a few eyebrows as it stands, as it presupposes a certain suspension of disbelief at the outset.

Fulfilling the Prophesies

The first four books of the New Testament, the Gospels, include many references to Old Testament passages that, according to the writers, proved that Jesus was the Messiah. This is where things get very suspicious indeed.

It is true that there are several references in the Old Testament to a Messiah who will come to rescue the Jews from their oppression and overthrow their enemies, but this figure was clearly a long way from the character of Jesus of Nazareth. However, that did not stop the Gospel writers from digging up dozens of references that clearly, according to them, pointed at Jesus.

However, when these references are looked at more closely, the case for Jesus as predicted Messiah is far from convincing.

Some of the quoted passages make absolutely no reference to a Messiah. One of these is the very well-known Isaiah Chapter 53 (“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows … He was wounded for our transgressions , he was bruised for our iniquities” and so on). There is no indication as to who “he” is, other than “my servant”, and, although some of this chapter seems to fit the story of Jesus reasonably well, there are verses in this chapter that do not fit at all and are hence quietly forgotten about in the context of Christian prophesy.

Other “prophesies” can only be regarded as such with the application of a good dose of imagination. Passages were yanked out of context and held to have meanings that it is highly unlikely were intended by their writers.

An example of the latter is Matthew 2:14/15, which reads: “… he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying Out of Egypt I have called my son”. However, the verse from Hosea (11:1) is clearly not a prophesy at all: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”. What could this possibly be other than a reference to the Exodus led by Moses? Trying to pretend that Hosea was predicting an incident in the life of Jesus is plainly absurd.

Both Matthew and Luke (the gospels were written anonymously and the names by which they are generally known were added later) were keen to fulfill Biblical prophesy on many fronts, one of them being the birthplace of Jesus at Bethlehem. The prophesy in this case was by Micah (5:2): “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel”.

The gospel writers felt compelled to use this prophesy to convince their audience (Jewish or Gentile) that the fact of Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem was proof that what had been predicted had come to pass. But this leads to further difficulties. For one thing, Micah was talking about a military leader (no mention of a Messiah) who would sort out the Assyrians who had already devastated the northern kingdom and might well do the same to the southern one, which was where Micah lived.

The main problem, however, was that Jesus clearly came from Galilee and not Bethlehem (not far from Jerusalem). How could this circle be squared? Writing independently of each other, Matthew and Luke came up with completely different solutions. Matthew had the parents of Jesus living in Bethlehem and then moving to Nazareth, after a sojourn in Egypt, and Luke invented the absurd scenario of a census that forced a heavily pregnant woman to make a long and dangerous journey to Bethlehem from her home in Nazareth.

Efforts have been made to reconcile these two accounts and pretend that both could have happened, but these attempts are far from convincing.

St Paul

There can be very little doubt that Christianity would not have got going had it not been for St Paul. For one thing, it was his idea to spread the story of Jesus beyond the realm of Judaism, which is where some factions of the early Church thought it should stay. Without Paul, Christianity would have been nothing other than one more sect of Judaism.

It was Paul who developed the theology of Christianity, with the emphasis on belief as opposed to following rules or doing good works. According to Paul, belief in the fact that Jesus was the son of God, that his death relieved the faithful from the burden of sin, and that his resurrection from the dead opened the way for his followers to go to Heaven, was all that was necessary.

Given that Paul spread his message to places outside the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, and to people who would otherwise never have heard of Jesus, he had free rein to tell potential converts whatever he wanted about Jesus as Messiah, and with little risk of being challenged about the details.

It is well known that many Jesus stories did the rounds in the early Church, and people have always loved to hear stories, whether true or not. The four Gospels, which were written after most of Paul’s letters had been sent to the young churches, were needed to scotch some of the more lurid tales and also put words into Jesus’s mouth. If people wanted something new other than Greek mysticism and Roman emperor-worship, Paul was pushing at an open door.

But was it all a massive confidence trick based on very little in the way of firm foundations?

The Christian Legacy

I am far from convinced that Christianity is anything other than a massive cloud floating on air. The very existence of Jesus is difficult to confirm, given that the evidence outside the texts of the New Testament is extremely sketchy and dubious.

However, the teachings of Christianity do merit serious attention. There can surely be nothing wrong in loving one’s neighbour, acting justly and forgiving one’s enemies. Beyond that, I find the package as offered very hard to accept.

© John Welford

Thor: the Norse thunder god

Norse mythology was alive and well in what is now Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland) until the 10^th and 11^th centuries, which is when Christianity finally ousted Paganism in the region. Many of the myths told of the doings of Thor.

Thor acted as the protector both of gods and men, sometimes appearing to be the equivalent of Heracles/Hercules in the Greek/Roman pantheon, and sometimes substituting for Zeus/Jupiter.

Thor was widely venerated as a thunder and lightning god, as well as the weather in general. His popularity can be seen in the many Scandinavian personal names that incorporate his name, such as Thorlakr and Thorleifr. 

In southern Germanic areas Thor was known as Donar, the Anglo-Saxons called him Donar, and in Viking Age Britain (8^th to 11^th centuries) he was Thur, which is why the day after Wednesday is Thursday!

Thor was seen as the protector of pagan people against the spread of Christianity, which is why Thor and his hammer often appeared on pagan gravestones.

© John Welford

The gardens and grounds of Charlottenburg Palace, Berlin

Visitors to Berlin’s Charlottenburg Palace can not only enjoy the delights of its many rooms, now restored to their Baroque splendour after damage caused by a wartime air raid, but can also explore 55 hectares (136 acres) of gardens, lakes and other grounds at the rear of the Palace. These areas are free to visit and are an open space that is greatly valued by local residents.

The original owner of Lietzenburg Palace, Sophie Charlotte, after whom the Palace was renamed after her death, was very interested in garden design and planned a large formal garden after the pattern of that at Versailles, near Paris. The emphasis was on straight lines, long paths and geometric shapes, with regularly placed statues, vases and potted plants. Good use was made of the adjoining River Spree in that a harbour was created for gondolas.

Sophie Charlotte was also very keen on building an Orangery on the western side of the main building and this housed more than 500 orange and lemon trees.

However, later kings, notably Frederick William II and III had other ideas and transformed the Baroque garden into something more along the lines of an English landscape garden with grassy meadows, copses, meandering paths, isolated statues in flower beds and watercourses that surrounded irregularly-shaped islands that could only be reached by rope-ferries. By 1833 virtually nothing remained of the original Baroque layout.

World War II was a disaster for the grounds of Charlottenburg Palace, which either became completely overgrown or were used for growing crops.

Post-war restoration, between 1952 and 1968, managed to combine the designs both of Sophie Charlotte and the later kings. However, it was not until 2001 that the large French-style Baroque garden, complete with a fountain, reached its final form and now looks much as Sophie Charlotte would have seen it.

At the far end of the formal garden is a long lake beyond which, and to one side, is a large area of woodland and grassy areas, with wandering paths and watercourses, which are more in keeping with the landscaping notions of the two Frederick Williams.

There is therefore much to explore and enjoy, with many opportunities to spot birds and other wildlife.

The Mausoleum

Hidden away in the woods, at the end of an avenue of fir trees, is a small building on the model of a Doric temple. This was built between 1811 and 1814 as the final resting place of Queen Louisa, the wife of King Frederick William III. She died in 1810 at the age of 34. Her funerary monument was sculpted from Carrara marble and is a particularly moving piece of Neoclassical sculpture.

The Mausoleum was later used to house the remains of Frederick William in 1840 and the first German imperial couple, William I and Augusta.

The New Pavilion

This building, which is close to the far end of the New Wing, was built after the death of Queen Louisa and after Frederick William’s second marriage (to Augusta of Harrach). He did not wish to live in the New Wing (which had been his home with Louisa), so he had this private residence constructed instead.

The two-storey New Pavilion is cubic in shape, with a flat roof, French windows and an Italian-style all-round balcony at first-floor level. Frederick William had stayed in a very similar building in Naples and wished to have his own version of it at Charlottenburg. The interior was decorated in Neoclassical style.

The building one sees today is actually a reconstruction of the original which was destroyed in the 1943 air raid that did a huge amount of damage to the Palace. Since 1970 it has been used to house an art collection that includes works by Caspar David Friedrich and Karl Friedrich Schinkel.

The Belvedere

Towards the northern end of the Palace grounds is The Belvedere, a three-storey observation tower on an oval ground plan. The building was originally on an island, but the nearby watercourses have since been altered.

It was built in 1788 on the orders of King Frederick William II, who wanted somewhere private to which to retreat and from which he could observe his estate. It is also believed that King Frederick William, who believed in spirit manifestations, used the Belvedere for carrying out Rosicrucian seances.

After World War II only the shell of the building was left standing and the interior was rebuilt in a greatly simplified form. It is now used as a Museum of the History of Berlin Porcelain.

© John Welford

Charlottenburg Palace, Berlin

Charlottenburg Palace is a remarkable ensemble of buildings and gardens that demonstrate the wealth and splendour of the Hohenzollern monarchy of Prussia during the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Situated in the northwest of Berlin, but within easy reach of the centre, it is well worth a whole day visit.

The Palace suffered considerable damage during World War II, but the restoration work was done to a very high standard, so one can be assured that one is seeing the Palace much as it would have appeared to its first royal residents.

The Palace started out as Lietzenburg, a modest summer residence built between 1695 and 1699 for the Electress Sophie Charlotte, the wife of Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg. However, when he declared himself “King Frederick I in Prussia” in 1701, Lietzenburg underwent a major expansion with the main axis stretched out both east and west and – on the city side – two wings built at right-angles to the main building to create the Great Courtyard.

This work was completed in 1702, but Queen Charlotte did not live long to enjoy her private retreat. She died in 1705 at the age of 37, after which King Frederick renamed the place in her honour and it has been Charlottenburg ever since.

Not much changed at Charlottenburg until the grandson of Frederick and Charlotte became King Frederick II (“Frederick the Great”) in 1740. He commissioned the long eastward extension of the main axis that was known – than and now - as the New Wing. He had the rooms of the extension richly decorated in the Rococo style that was fashionable at the time and indulged his taste for collecting paintings, furniture and objets d’art that were used to fill the spaces.

Frederick’s successor, his nephew King Frederick William II, had some of the rooms redecorated in Neoclassical style and indulged a taste for Chinoiserie – Chinese style.

Later monarchs and their consorts used Charlottenburg to varying degrees and did not make huge changes to the décor. Interest waned after the death of King Frederick William IV, as neither his brother, who succeeded as King William I (and then became the first German Emperor in 1871) lived in the Palace at any time of the year.

After the end of the monarchy following Germany’s defeat in World War I in 1918, Charlottenburg Palace became a field hospital and plans were then put in place to transform it into a museum.

During World War II Berlin suffered considerable air raid damage and during the heaviest raid, on 22^nd November 1943, the Palace received several direct hits. These destroyed much of the original structure, including the central domed tower and portions of the wings to the west and east. Fortunately, most of the contents had been placed in safe storage, but nothing could be done to save elements such as many ceiling paintings.

The later reconstruction and restoration were done extremely well, and at great expense, although some of the work proved to be controversial. Most visitors, however, find little to complain about!

A look at some of the rooms

Red Chamber

This room was probably used as a conference room by King Frederick I. The walls are hung with red damask wallpaper and gold braid. Portraits of Sophie Charlotte and King Frederick I hang over the doors at each end of the room.

The Porcelain Cabinet

This room was badly damaged during the 1943 air raid and demonstrates the enormous efforts made at restoration. The porcelain collection of the Hohenzollerns was extensive and a testament to their love of chinoiserie (including pieces from Japan). Most of the pieces currently on display are replacements, there being around 2,700 items predominantly from the K’ang-hsi period (1622-1722). The ceiling painting (much restored) dates from 1706 and shows the goddess Aurora surrounded by personifications of the continents, signs of the zodiac and allegories of the seasons.

Palace Chapel

The Palace Chapel was consecrated on 5^th December 1706, which was after the death of Sophie Charlotte. She had taken particular care over its planning, which she decreed should be “the most richly decorated place of any in her palace”. She certainly got her wish, if only posthumously. Enormous care was taken over its restoration following massive air raid damage, including total reconstruction of the ceiling painting and the organ.

A carved oak pulpit stands opposite the royal gallery, above which a huge golden crown and the Prussian eagle are held aloft by trumpet-blowing angels. Temporal and spiritual power are therefore held in balance and are in accordance with the Hohenzollerns’ Reformed Calvinist faith and their belief in the divine right to rule.

The Golden Gallery

This ballroom is on the upper floor of the New Wing and extends across the whole width, being 42 metres (138 feet) long. It was completely restored between 1961 and 1973 and is a splendid example of Rococo interior design.

The gilt décor features shells, tendrils, flowers and fruits set against green marble-effect stucco.

Antechamber Room

The most notable feature of this room is the painting “Napoleon Crossing the Alps” by Jacques Louis David (1748-1825). This is one of five versions of the painting made by the artist, each of them being slightly different from the rest. This one was originally housed in the Chateau de Saint-Cloud in Paris, from where it was “liberated” by Count von Blucher after the defeat of Napoleon and presented to King Frederick William III.

© John Welford

How to Make Champagne

Have you ever made your own wine from a wine kit? Have you ever fancied going several steps further and making your own Champagne? Well – you can’t! At least, you can’t do so unless you live in a specific region of eastern France to the south of the city of Rheims. You might be able to make sparkling wine elsewhere, but unless it is produced in the Champagne region it cannot be called Champagne.

And even if it was not illegal to make the stuff anywhere else, do you really know how to make it? When you know all the steps involved, you should not be surprised at just how expensive it is.

Three varieties of grape are used for making Champagne – Pinot Noir, Meunier and Chardonnay. They are grown in three distinct areas on the chalky soils of the region, which are noted for their hot summers and cold winters. Blends are made from the produce of several vineyards.

The secret of making Champagne is the “méthode champenoise”, which was supposedly invented in the 17^th century by a Benedictine monk named Dom Perignon. At heart, the method involves two periods of fermentation, the second being inside the bottle. And that is where the fun starts!

The secondary fermentation requires the bottles to be corked and placed on sloping racks, where they are turned and shaken slightly every day. This is known as rémuage. The process originally meant that workers had to do this manually as they walked along the rows of possibly thousands of bottles, and this had to be done for anything between six months and several years. However, modern production allows for remuage to be done mechanically under computer control – the quality of the wine under this speeded-up process does not appear to have been unduly affected.

When rémuage is complete, the bottles are stood upright and upside-down so that any deposit collects on the corks. They are then placed in frozen brine so that the deposit forms a solid plug that is then removed with the corks.

This has to be done so that cane-sugar syrup can be added before the bottles are re-corked. The amount of syrup determines the sweetness or otherwise of the wine. Add little or no syrup and you have “brut” or extra dry Champagne. The other common varieties are “sec” (dry) and “demi-sec” which is actually quite sweet.

When the bottles return to their original temperature they are allowed to stand and achieve their final “fizz”

So – do you still want to make your own? Or will you stick to the wine kit and bite the financial bullet when you want proper Champers?

© John Welford

Neue Synagoge, Berlin

This splendid building is on Berlin’s Oranienburger Strasse. It has had a tragic history that continues to this day, as is evident from the fact that armed policemen stand guard over its entrance right round the clock and visitors must pass through a metal detector before being admitted.

The “Neue Synagoge” (New Synagogue) no longer acts as the main synagogue of Berlin but it contains prayer rooms and the Jewish Centre – a research facility and museum relating to the local Jewish community.

The building is a reconstruction of what was originally built here between 1859 and 1866. It was a highly innovative design that was a masterpiece of 19^th century civil engineering, particularly in its use of ironwork. It its heyday the synagogue could accommodate 3,000 worshippers.

Everything changed on the night of 9^th November 1938 when organized protests against the Jewish community took place that have gone done in history as “Kristallnacht”, the “night of broken glass”. The synagogue was badly damaged, with more destruction following due to Allied bombing during World War Two. The ruins were completely demolished in 1958.

Reconstruction began in 1988 and was completed in 1995. The building now looks from the outside just as it did when first built, including the splendid eye-catching dome.

Despite the much greater tolerance towards Jews (and all religious minorities) that is evident in Berlin today, the sad fact remains that anti-Semitism is still rife – hence the armed guards outside the door.

©John Welford