The legend of the Three Wise Men

6^th January is the Feast of the Epiphany and is traditionally the date on which the “wise men from the East” in St Matthew’s Gospel reached Bethlehem and offered their gifts of “gold, frankincense and myrrh” to the infant Jesus. It is also the date on which all Christmas decorations must be taken down if you haven’t done so already!

Did the Three Wise Men ever exist?

This is a story that has grown in the telling over the centuries. For one thing, it is only because there were three gifts that there has always been reference to three givers – Matthew says nothing about this. The wise men have also been promoted to kings in many versions of the story, although the justification for this seems to come from references in the Book of Psalms to kings bearing gifts.

It is easy to imagine how the sketchy mentions by Matthew (and no-one else) might have been given more substantial form in later years. When the story was read in a 2^nd-century Christian gathering, as everyone hid in the catacombs for fear of being discovered by the Romans, a child might have asked “What were their names?” and so names were suggested . Another might have asked “What did they look like?” and an artist among the adults would have been inspired to paint them on the walls, using a measure of artistic licence.

As a result, the Christian tradition was that the three wise men were named Balthasar, Caspar and Melchior, and they were of different ages - young, middle-aged and elderly. One of them (Balthasar) was drawn as a black man. Traditions, once established, are hard to break, and so artists all down the centuries have followed the same conventions.

Cologne Cathedral and the Three Wise Men

According to tradition, the bones of the three wise men were preserved and eventually found their way to Germany. A special shrine was constructed and this became the central feature of the new Cologne Cathedral, which was founded in 1248, nearly 50 years after the bones had reached the city.

In 1864 the shrine was opened and the bones of three men were found to be inside, together with a coin dating from the time of the shrine’s construction. Strange to tell, the ages of the bones showed that the men had died at different ages, one being quite young, one being middle-aged and the third being elderly. This would fit the legend that the wise men became Christians and were martyred, presumably at the same time.

However, the huge medieval appetite for relics and physical links to the Bible stories gives credence to the notion that somebody made a quick buck by persuading the Church that three particular sets of bones (possibly dug up from a graveyard) were those of the three wise men. It would not have been the first nor the last time that a conman made a fortune from the gullibility of simple-minded people.

The three wise men, who have been accorded the status of saints by the Roman Catholic Church, may therefore never have existed or, if they did, their personal details owe a lot more to fiction than to fact. But it’s a good story, and where would the traditional school nativity play be without its three kings?

© John Welford

God as a purely mental construct

Over the years I have gradually lost any religious belief I once had, a process for which I am extremely grateful. I have found the acceptance of Atheism to be a profoundly uplifting experience and one that has allowed me to think clearly without any encumbrances of religious dogma.

It has, for example, allowed me to wonder about what people mean by “God”, and I offer the following thoughts not as any sort of “preaching” but as a way of placing on record (for my own benefit if no-one else’s) what I suspect might be the answer to that question.

In here or out there?

It seems clear enough that most believers in God have a dual view of what he (or she) is. God is both a personal deity who helps one to get through life and also an external power who may or may not be in general control of the Universe.

There are all sorts of ideas about what God does and has done, from the creator of all things to being the prime mover in events great and small. He is held to blame for earthquakes, floods, plagues and much more besides – usually as a form of punishment for general wickedness – and for rescuing people from life-threatening situations and diseases, at both general and personal levels.

However, he is also regarded as being “in here” as a personal presence who comforts one at moments of distress or provides extra help to get through difficult situations. Most believers do not see anything untoward in holding both concepts of God – in here and out there.

An overall deity?

However, the evidence for an “out there” God does seem to be decidedly tenuous. All cultures in ancient times seemed to need gods to provide answers to questions, such as why the Sun rose, crops grew or terrible events took place, but those questions have long since been given rational answers and thus the need for an external intelligence that makes everything happen has declined to virtually zero.

Although there are still some very odd people around who think that the Book of Genesis is a description of reality rather than a typical example of primitive mythology, the need for God as creator has dwindled to the question of “who lit the fuse for the Big Bang?”. The “God of the gaps” now has only one gap left to fill, if any – there are many people who are satisfied that theories such as quantum mechanics offers perfectly satisfactory explanations for absolutely everything.

A personal God

So if there is no need for an external God, how does one explain the firm conviction that millions of people have that God is a reality with which they are in regular contact, and without which their lives would be impossible? They are utterly convinced not only that their prayers are being addressed to something that exists but that they receive direct answers.

There are many examples throughout history of people who have been absolutely certain that God has spoken directly to them, either as a voice or via some messenger such as an angel. The Bible is crammed full of such events, and Joan of Arc was far from being the only saint who believed that they had received instructions directly from Heaven to do what they did.

Indeed, many Christians will say that they have been “born again” as a result of receiving a “call” that was every bit as strong as a direct voice speaking to them, even if this fell short of an angelic visitation.

So do these examples not prove that God is a real being that speaks directly to individuals?

Voices in the head

I think not. We have long known that there is a phenomenon known as “auditory hallucination”, in which the sufferer is convinced that they are being spoken to by somebody who is not present or communicating with them by normal means. Apart from being a regular symptom of psychotic illness, there is a very wide range of mental conditions that can include auditory hallucination to a greater or lesser extent.

At its extreme, this phenomenon can lead people to commit terrible acts, including mass murder, because they were convinced that the “voices” were telling them to do so. Although most people who hear voices recognise that they are not real, there are unfortunately some who are unable to tell the difference and act on what they believe they have been told to do.

Auditory hallucinations are so common – and not necessarily connected with mental illness – that it would not be at all surprising to learn that the vast majority of “born again” episodes were the result of such events. This would be especially true in cases where the person was already associating with others who were religiously inclined and were therefore half expecting such a “call” to come their way.

I therefore take the view that one’s “personal God” is highly likely to be a product of brain function that is slightly out of alignment.

But what about prayer?

Many Christians will no doubt object that the fact of prayer disproves this thesis. They will say, in all sincerity, that they pray to God and that God answers their prayers. How could he do so if he neither existed externally nor was anything other than a mental blip?

Traditionally, “request” prayers have been of two types, aiming either to see some change in the outside world – to improve the health of another person, for example – or to be given some extra help in solving a personal problem. One has to ask how effective prayers of these types tend to be.

There have been many cases in which it is claimed that an external event has taken place as a result of prayer. These can, for example, take the form of an unexpected cure for a life-threatening illness, and such cases are sometimes termed “miracles”.

Indeed, in the Roman Catholic Church holy dead people can only become saints if miracles can be shown to have happened as a result of the prayers of the faithful aimed in their direction.

However, what is never disclosed is the number of prayers that have failed to achieve their objective. It would be interesting to know what proportion of prayers “succeed” and how many desirable events would have taken place had nobody prayed for them at all. This is probably impossible to determine, but there is nothing other than anecdote to set against coincidence when it comes to proving the power of “external” prayer.

But what about “internal” prayers, namely those that ask for personal strength to cope with a particular situation? The number of success stories here is legion, according to Christians. Indeed, were they not so it is unlikely that most believers would continue with the practice. Surely this is proof that prayer works, and it can only do so if there is some agency at work, to whit God, that is making them work?

I think you need to set the practice of prayer against that of meditation, which can be done in a purely non-religious context. Just as there are millions of people across the world who engage in regular prayer, so are there millions of non-believers who engage in some form of meditation and are convinced that they obtain just as much benefit from it as those who pray do from their prayers.

The practice of training the mind to clear itself of extraneous thoughts and obtain a state of purity is undoubtedly beneficial and can be used to great effect as a means of solving personal problems and giving oneself extra mental energy.

If the same results can be obtained from meditation as from prayer, then what is so special about the latter?

A figment of the mind

I am therefore convinced that God is a purely personal construct that has no reality outside the minds of believers.

Despite the efforts of philosophers to prove the existence of God, no such proofs are convincing and all have been shown to be fallacious. There is no need for God to exist in terms of providing explanations for the natural world or as a driver of world events.

Likewise, all cases of “personal messages” can be shown to be the result of mental processes, and claims to receive benefits from prayer can be matched by claims of benefits from mental exercises that do not involve prayer.

However, it cannot be doubted that many people gain a great deal from their practice of religion, and I would not want them to stop believing whatever they want to, providing that they do not try to force their beliefs on to others.

What the world can really do without is the conviction by some religious people that they have the only answers and that everyone else must follow their lead. If this is your attitude, I for one do not share it.

© John Welford

Should the Bible be continued?

What is the Bible? A collection of books, divided into two “Testaments” that describe the workings of God in the World, before and after the coming of Christ. But these books are not the only ones ever written about which this could be said. Even at the time of the “modern” Bible’s creation, in the 4^th century AD, there were many books that fought for a place in the canon. Some were accepted, others rejected outright, and yet more were given a shadowy acceptance as the “Apocrypha”, given respect by some branches of Christianity but not others.

When we look at the books that did gain admission, we find some strange bedfellows. In the Old Testament, for example, we have Esther and the Song of Solomon, the first of which is a thoroughly good story involving an assassination plot and the unmasking of a villain, but in which the name of Jehovah is not mentioned once.  As for the latter, it is not far short of pornography!

However, if these books were intended to show God at work, in many and various ways, why did we stop the process of Bible-building 1700 years ago? Have there been no texts written in more recent centuries that perform exactly the same function? Would it not benefit today’s Church-goers to hear words of witnesss read to them that relate more to today’s world?

I would like to suggest the Bible be expanded in this way, and the example of Wikipedia, by which individuals can make their own contributions to a body of knowledge, is an interesting one to follow. Indeed, a closer examination of some of the books of the Bible shows that they were given the "Wikipedia" treatment thousands of years ago. Isaiah and Jeremiah, for instance, are both mashups of texts, with later editors adding bits in as and when they saw fit.

So Yes, why not? A Bible that took account of the lives lived and knowledge gained over the centuries since the canon was established would be a better "testament" to the work of God in the world today than the set of ancient texts on their own. These days we understand that mental illness is not the work of “devils” and that homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence, and a recognition of these facts in our Bible might lead to greater tolerance on the part of religious people. 

I can foresee problems, however.  The very intolerance caused, in part, by rigid interpretations of scripture, has led to splits in the Church that make it hard to imagine that agreement on which testaments to add to the canon will be at all easy to reach. However, the very procedure of debating the canon afresh might have the effect of making people examine their beliefs in greater depth and reaching new agreements with their fellow Christians, which surely would not be a bad thing.

© John Welford

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