Was Jesus really born in Bethlehem?

“Everybody knows” that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. But how likely is that? My contention is that the Gospel writers made up stories that do not stand up to scrutiny.

Where was Jesus born?

The two gospel writers who gave an account of the birth of Jesus, namely Matthew and Luke, had a problem. This was that Jesus came from Galilee and was therefore a northerner as far as the Jews of Jerusalem were concerned. The distance from his home village of Nazareth to Jerusalem was more than 60 miles, which might not sound like much to a modern car-driving person, but it would have involved several days of travelling to someone on foot or riding a donkey.

The problem was that the Messiah was, according to accepted prophesies, supposed to be born in Bethlehem, the “city of David”, which is about six miles from Jerusalem. How could Jesus be born in Bethlehem but also be a Galilean?

Squaring the circle

Matthew and Luke both came up with ingenious solutions. According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, but were warned that the child’s life was in danger. They therefore fled firstly to Egypt and then to Nazareth, which was presumably considered far enough from Jerusalem to be safe.

Joseph would have had to abandon his home and business in Bethlehem and start all over again in a strange place where he would have been thought of as a foreigner.

Luke tried a different approach, which was to assume that Joseph and Mary were residents of Nazareth who were forced to travel to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. They did not return to Nazareth immediately but waited until Mary had been “purified” and then took the child to the Temple in Jerusalem before setting off for home.

In order to achieve these scenarios both gospel writers had to devise a complicated series of events, each of which is open to question.

       

It is surely beyond doubt that the two stories cannot both have been true, not least because one would have to ask why each writer had not thought fit to give the details that the other thought were essential. Apart from that, Joseph and Mary cannot have started both from Nazareth and from Bethlehem.

The question then arises – if one of the stories must be wrong, why does that not apply to both stories? There is no reason to believe either account to be more reliable than the other, so surely the logical response is to discount both of them.

Why did the Gospel writers tell different stories?

One fact that is surely true is that both Matthew and Luke were trying to tell a story that fulfilled prophecies and therefore pointed out the significant features of the birth of Jesus. The literal truth of what happened did not matter, so the story could be allowed to develop in whatever way seemed expedient for achieving the prime purpose of the narrative.

It must also be remembered that neither gospel writer was an eyewitness of the Nativity events and must therefore either have got their facts from the people who were present at the time, were repeating stories passed by word of mouth - possibly changing by "Chinese whispers" through many tellings, or made them up. Tradition has it that Joseph died before Jesus reached adulthood, which only leaves Mary as a possible witness. Also according to tradition, Luke got his facts from Peter. So, if Mary told Matthew and Peter what happened, why did she tell them two completely different stories?

Surely it is far more likely that Matthew and Luke made up stories to suit their purposes, and the truth of what happened had very little to do with it.

And was Jesus born in Bethlehem, as opposed to Nazareth? Given the hoops that the gospel writers jumped through to reach their conclusion, it does seem more than a little unlikely.

© John Welford

The acllas: Inca "women of the sun"

The Inca empire covered a huge swathe of South America by the time of its discovery by Spanish explorers and conquerors in the 16th century. Their civilization was highly developed, as were their religious practices which were based on sun worship. Indeed, the name Inca means “people of the sun”.

The most popular deity of the Incas was Inti, the god of the sun. His temples were highly revered and tended by a special group of women known as “acllas” or “women of the sun”. These women were accorded every respect, and it has been suggested that the famed city of Machu Picchu was primarily a training ground for acllas.

To become an aclla a girl had to be chosen at the age of eight by a committee of elders who travelled through the villages of the empire looking for potential candidates. Unblemished beauty was the main criterion for selection, along with pure Inca ancestry. If a village girl was chosen for aclla training this was regarded as a great honour for both the family and the village.

A young aclla was taught how to weave priestly robes, make “chicha” (a ceremonial maize beer), prepare ritual food, and care for the mummified bodies of Inca ancestors. She would be housed in a part of the temple called the “acllahuasi”, which meant “house of the chosen women”.

At the age of 14 there was another decision made by the committee of elders which concerned an aclla’s future. It might be decided that the girl could return to her village or that she could move on to the next stage.

The highest rank she could obtain would be that of “mamacuna”, whose duties included looking after the temple, tending the sacred fires and assisting the priests in their rituals. A mamacuna was regarded almost like a saint who had direct contact with the gods, but she had to forswear sexual contact for her whole life which would be lived entirely in the acllahuasi. There is an interesting comparison here with the vestal virgins of ancient Rome who performed similar roles and were restricted in their private lives but were highly revered. This was clearly a case of parallel development, because the Incas would not have had any knowledge of what the Romans had done centuries earlier on a different continent.

Life was less certain for an aclla who did not get chosen either to become a mamacuna or return to her family. She might end up as a sacrificial offering to Inti, although this was also regarded as a huge privilege. Alternatively, she might become the concubine of a nobleman or military leader, or be married off as part of a political deal.

Whatever her fate, an aclla knew that she would be highly respected during her life and be honoured after death. One reason for the suggestion the Machu Picchu was an aclla “university” is that more than 80% of the mummified bodies found there were those of women.

© John Welford

Could Abraham have had camels?

The Old Testament Book of Genesis, Chapter 12, tells the story of the calling of Abram, who would later be called Abraham. He is generally reputed to have been the founder of the Jewish Nation. In verse 16 mention is made of his possessions: 

“… and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.”

This is one of 22 mentions of camels in the Book of Genesis. However, a question arises as to whether these early references to camels in the region of the eastern Mediterranean can stand up to scrutiny.

That is because of a discovery made in 2014 in what had been ancient copper mines between the Dead and Red Seas. Camel bones were found at a particular level that could easily be dated, due to the use of radiocarbon techniques. No camel bones were found at any level deeper than the one in question.

What this meant was that the domestication of camels in the region could not have happened prior to the 9^th century BC. That would have been far too late for Abraham, who was supposed to have lived at around 2000 BC.

This dating accords with the generally held view that the Book of Genesis was written in around the 6^th century BC, when there were probably lots of camels in the region. The writers would have had no reason to doubt that there had been camels there back in Abraham’s day.

But of course this view does not go down well with those people who hold that the Bible cannot be wrong in any respect. It must therefore be the archaeologists and radiocarbon daters who are in error!

© John Welford

Monotheism and religious violence

In terms of world history, monotheism is a relatively new phenomenon, although it is now the dominant force in world religion, with Christianity and Islam leading the way.

One abiding feature of the growth of monotheism through the centuries has been a massive rise in violence inspired by religion, and this is not generally something that one associates with polytheistic religions, the adherents of which seem to be generally far more tolerant of other religious standpoints.

The world has been made starkly aware in recent years of violence perpetrated by extremists claiming to be upholders of Islam, but Christianity cannot be let off the hook so easily.

Leaving aside the hatred that members of one religion might have for another, Christians seem to be particularly adept at directing their ire at members of other factions who also profess to be Christians. Historically, the 16^th and 17^th centuries seem to have been the high-water mark for intolerance within Christianity, with a series of religious wars being fought in Europe that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Probably the most notorious incident during this period was the organized slaughter in France of Protestants by Catholics on St Bartholomew’s Day (24^th August) 1572, when it is possible that as many as 10,000 men, women and children were hacked to pieces because of their “heresy”. It is worth noting that more people died because of their religion within 24 hours than in 300 years of supposed persecution under the Roman Empire.

This is the interesting thing – despite the string of stories about the martyrdom of early Christians, many of whom are remembered today as saints of the Church, there were only four relatively short waves of persecution during the Empire. In general, the polytheistic Emperors of Rome were tolerant of non-official religions being practiced in parts of the Empire, but they tended to become distrustful of people who would not include the emperors on their list of beings to be worshipped. This was mainly down to political rather than religious reasons – when the Emperor could not rely on the loyalty of a group of subjects he was likely to be suspicious of that group’s motives in terms of possible disruption to good order or even plots against his person.

We cannot let Christianity off the hook by saying that this was all in the past and everybody has been perfectly well behaved ever since, because that plainly is not true. Many examples could be cited, such as the running sore in Irish politics that derives from the distrust (and sometimes hatred) between Catholics and Protestants – these being two groups that claim to follow the “Prince of Peace” as their spiritual leader.

I am not claiming that Christianity is the sole culprit. Far from it – the split in Islam between Sunni and Shia has led to countless deaths of people with deep religious convictions, albeit the wrong ones as far as their opponents are concerned. There are many other splits within Islam that have given rise to terrible violence being visited on innocent people who had the misfortune to be born into the “wrong” sect.

One abiding factor in all this seems to be the overwhelming belief of many people that they have the sole answer, in religious terms, this being a direct consequence of monotheism. They are right in their belief, which means that everyone else must be wrong if they do not hold exactly the same opinion. If you are not my friend, you must be my foe.

Unfortunately, the seeds of intolerance yield bitter fruit, and most humans do not seem to have the intelligence to appreciate that violence solves absolutely nothing, whatever its motivation.

So what is the answer? One would like to hope that humanity will eventually come to its senses and realise that monotheistic religious belief, in which one size fits all, needs to be rejected. It would be wonderful if everyone who holds a religious belief accepted that the beliefs of others are every bit as valid as their own, and that constantly trying to persuade (or force) others to follow your religion is a fool’s errand, but what are the chances of that?

Let me end with a favourite quote (from Woody Allen): If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up. 

© John Welford

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