Embedded Files
Saturday, June 24
You already know that I’m a fan of St. Helena (discoverer of Jesus’ tomb, his cross, the Scala Sancta, and more). Another one of her accomplishments was founding the Church of the Nativity. More than just its namesake, the basilica and grotto is the oldest continuously-used place of worship in Christianity. It wasn’t destroyed and rebuilt as often as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Even though it is one of the oldest in Christianity, the church wasn’t the first building on the site. There were people who believed Jesus was born in that cave, but the Roman emperor Hadrian (the same from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) had the site modified as a place of worship for Adonis. St. Helena visited about two hundred years later, declared it as the place of the nativity, and the new church was consecrated in 339 CE. It was destroyed once and rebuilt in the 500s. For my true archaeology geeks out there, the date is confirmed from dendrochronological analysis obtained during a recent restoration.
Jesus is said to have been born in the grotto near the main altar. The exact place is marked by a 14-pointed silver star inscribed in Latin: “Hic De Virgine Maria Jesus Christus Natus Est” (Here Jesus Christ was born to the Virgin Mary).
This is the place to be on Christmas Eve. The celebration is unique because it must follow the rules of the status quo from the 1850s, way before the vernacular updates of Vatican II. It’s an untouched experience of the traditional Latin mass. Truly a step back in time.
But…I promised to be straight with you. If you ever journey to the Holy Land, I don’t recommend visiting. First, let’s deal with the logistics. It’s in the State of Palestine, so the area isn’t as nice as Jerusalem. Also, the infrastructure can’t support this many visitors. The parking was about ½ mile away with steep streets to climb and vendors hocking their wares. Once you get inside, most of the building is quite plain except when you get closer to the site itself. The previous photos may look serene, but they are deceptive. Here’s the reality of my experience: over an hour standing in line.
The second reason I wouldn’t recommend going is because there’s a compelling argument that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem. All four Gospels agree that he was "of Nazareth." It was typical that names included the birthplace, for example Mary of Magdala. It’s important to note that both Mark and John don’t have a nativity story. They begin when Jesus is grown. So why would Matthew and Luke add one? The intention of the Gospels were to preserve the story, and to persuade others that he was the Messiah. How could they do that? They would recount his miracles, his words, and his passion. But they could do one more thing: establish his credibility. The writers of Matthew and Luke were educated men. They knew the Jewish writings, especially Micah 5:2, which predicted that the next great leader would come from Bethlehem. “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” Also, it was important for Jesus to be connected to David, who was born in Bethlehem (1 Samuel 17:12). This placed him on the kingly lineage, a rightful heir to the throne. What better way to convince Jews than with their own prophecies? The writers were genius in how they mirrored aspects of the Exodus and Moses. Moses had to deal with the murder of the firstborns, so did Jesus. Moses came out of Egypt, so did Jesus. Matthew and Luke disagree on many facts, like one talking about the firstborn killings, while the other recounts the greeting of the shepherds. But the most challenging argument of all is that the bureaucratic elements of the stories have little basis in history. There's a lot of documentation about Herod (including the bad stuff he did), but there is no record anywhere of ordering a massacre of the innocents. (You’d think a few people would be upset about that.) Also, the Roman census did not happen the way Luke tells it. It’s incorrect on the dates and there would be no need for Joseph to return to Bethlehem (the Romans didn’t care where you were from, only that you paid your taxes). Finally, there’s the issue with witnesses. During Jesus’ ministry, there were always people around who could take notes or recount memories. In the case of the birth, who documented it? It was only Mary and Joseph, who were both very busy at the time (and who were most likely illiterate). To make a long story short, Matthew and Luke probably created a compelling origin story to convince Jews and Gentiles to convert to the new faith.
Some people believe that transformational leaders must have a noteworthy birth. I’m not one of them. Neil Armstrong was from a tiny town in Ohio, yet he still changed the world. The same could be said about Jesus of Nazareth.
Today I visited Jericho. This ancient city has two important facets: Biblical and archaeological. Most people primarily know the Biblical side, so let’s address that first. If you recall, Moses led the Israelites through the desert for 40 years. He took them to the very edge of the promised land, but died before entering it. Leadership was passed to Joshua. His orders from Yahweh were to conquer the cities of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16–17). The first was Jericho. Instead of the typical siege, Yahweh ordered the army to circle it seven times while the priests blew trumpets. On the last note, the walls collapsed, the Israelites invaded the city, killed every living thing inside, and offered them as sacrifices to the Lord (Joshua 6).
In the early 1900s, Biblical archaeology was a relatively new thing. People would visit the Holy Land with “a spade in one hand and a Bible in the other.” This is the most dangerous way to conduct scientific research: to seek out conclusions that you already believe (looking at you, Heinrich Schliemann). That’s what happened here. Early archaeologists looked for collapsed walls. Not to anyone’s surprise, they found them. Academic trumpets were blown across the world confirming the story in the Old Testament. A few years later, a very experienced and scientifically-focused archaeologist took another look. Kathleen Kenyon produced a lot of evidence showing the walls dated to a much earlier time. In fact, Jericho was completely abandoned when Joshua was supposed to be there. Since her report, there have been even more findings in Jericho and in other cities that Joshua was supposed to have conquered: there are no destruction layers, the settlements were abandoned, or they didn’t even exist yet. The most current archaeological theory is that the Israelites and their beliefs developed gradually over time, like other cultures all over the world.
The Old Testament story can distract from this amazing place. It may not have been conquered by Joshua, but it has been shown to be one of the most ancient cities in the world, dating to before 10,000 BCE. It contains one of the oldest towers constructed by humans, one of the oldest images of a human face, one of the oldest examples of portraiture (the famous plastered skulls), and one of the first places to clearly exhibit the introduction of farming which changed all of history. Wow!
For New Testament fans, Jericho is where Jesus healed the blind (Matthew 20:29), where he converted the tax collector (Luke 19:1-10), and on the road where the Parable of the Good Samaritan occurred (Luke 10:25-37).
And finally, we visited Qasr al-Yahud, traditionally the place of Jesus' baptism. As you can see, it's still in use today.
Report abuse