Christian tradition states
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Judea (now Palestine). This is about six
miles, ten kilometers, south of Jerusalem "on the east side of the
'Patriarch's Highway' that ran along the ridge between Shechem and Hebron:"
1 The Church of the Nativity
in Bethlehem was built by Constantine the Great, circa 330 CE.
It is believed by many Christians and Muslims to have been built over the
location of Jesus' birth. The exact spot of Jesus' birth is identified by a hole
in a 14 point star in a underground cave beneath the church.
However, the location of Christ's birth is not certain.
Matthew 2:1-6 quotes Micah 5:2 as one proof that Jesus was
the anticipated Messiah. Micah predicted that out of Bethlehem would "come a
ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel." The picture drawn by
Matthew is of an engaged couple who were living in Bethlehem at the time of
Jesus' birth.
Luke 2:1-7 describes Joseph and Mary as residents of
Nazareth in the Galilee. They had to travel the approximately 90 miles
(140 km) south from Nazareth in the Galilee to
Bethlehem in Judea in order to take part in the Roman census and taxation. Jesus was born while
they were in Bethlehem. This version of the Christmas story seems a little strange,
for many reasons:
The status
of a woman in 1st century Palestine was only slightly above that of a slave. Only
Joseph would be required to register with the authorities, because only men paid taxes.
The presence of his fiancée or wife would be redundant. Mary would hardly have made the
100 mile trip while 9 months pregnant unless it was absolutely necessary. Joseph would
have traveled alone.
Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority
(IAA), has said: "Basic medical knowledge tells you that a heavily pregnant
woman could not ride a donkey that kind of distance without losing her baby."
6
There is no record of a worldwide census having been made in the last
decade BCE. If one had been conducted, it would have been
so disruptive that it certainly would have been recorded at the time in Roman
documents. A census was taken by Quirinius during 6 CE, but that would have been when Jesus
was about ten years of age. Also, it was held in Judea, but not the Galilee
where Joseph lived. 8
It makes absolutely no sense to require Jews and other
inhabitants of the Roman Empire to return to their ancestral town
for registration. The economy of the Empire would be devastated if
everyone had to make such a visit. The transportation facilities
would be hopelessly overloaded. Censuses are always taken where
people live -- in ancient times and now.
Mark 6:1 contradicts Matthew by identifying Nazareth as Jesus'
birthplace as his "hometown." John 7:41-43 also contradicts Matthew. It
has people in a crowd rejecting Jesus as the Messiah because the Messiah was
expected to come from Bethlehem in Judea, whereas Jesus was known to come from
Galilee. But both are compatible with Luke's account, assuming that Joseph and
Mary returned quickly from Bethlehem in Judea to Nazareth.
There are numerous references in New Testament that identify Jesus as coming from
Nazareth. The early Christians were called "Nazarenes." Jesus
was called "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus the Nazorean" -
and never "Jesus of Bethlehem." 8
Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did
not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is
believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have
turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200
to 550 BCE 2 and
material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE and 1st
century CE. According to Aviram Oshiri, this
included the "...Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine
and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of
information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from
the time around the birth of Jesus." 3 So, it appears that Bethlehem was deserted at
the time that Jesus was born.
As usual, there is a division within Christianity along conservative/liberal
lines:
Conservative Christians usually believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both refer to Bethlehem
in Judea,
then that must have been Jesus' place of birth. It is confirmed by the passage
in Micah 5:2 which implied that the Messiah would be born there.
Some liberal Christians are convinced by the lack of archaeological
evidence in Bethlehem, Judea and the presence of archaeological evidence in
Bethlehem, Galilee that he was probably born in the Galilee. Further,
according to theologians Don Cuppitt and Peter Armstrong, "...our first
principle of historical criticism must be: be wary of any details in the
gospels which have close parallels in the Old Testament." 4 Their reasoning was that
Christians in the first century CE diligently searched
the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) for references for the coming Messiah.
They would have found the reference to Bethlehem, Judea, in Micah 5:3
and assumed that Jesus must have been born there. So, the authors of Matthew
and Luke would have followed this tradition.
An alternate birth location:
A new possibility has been suggested recently. There appears to have
been a small hamlet in Galilee that was also called Bethlehem -- "Bethlehem
HaGalilit" in Hebrew. It was
located very close to Nazareth.
Bruce Chilton, author of "Rabbi Jesus" comments:
"Bethlehem in Hebrew means 'house of bread,' a common name for
settlements with mills capable of producing fine flour, rather than the
course grade most Israelites used for their daily needs. In 1975, amid the
musty, damp and badly lit back shelves of the University Library in
Cambridge, I first learned of a Galilean Bethlehem, near Nazareth, from an
obscure study of the Talmud published during the nineteenth century. I was
surprised by the dearth of discussion of this place in New Testament studies
as the possible site of Jesus' birth, especially since a northern Bethlehem
is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Joshua 19:15)....Now, however,
archeological excavations show that Bethlehem in Galilee is a first-century
site just seven miles [12 km] from Nazareth, so my former reserve can be put aside.
There is good reason to surmise that the Bethlehem to which Matthew refers
was in Galilee." 5
Aviram Oshiri writes:
"I had never before questioned the assumption that Jesus was born in
Bethlehem in Judea. But in the early 1990s, as an archaeologist working for
the IAA, I was contracted to perform some salvage excavations around
building and infrastructure projects in a small rural community in the
Galilee. When I started work, some of the people who lived around the site
told me how Jesus was really born there, not in the south. Intrigued, I
researched the archaeological evidence for Bethlehem in Judea at the time of
Jesus and found nothing. This was very surprising, as Herodian remains
should be the first thing one should find. What was even more surprising is
what archaeologists had already uncovered and what I was to discover over
the next 11 years of excavation at the small rural site--Bethlehem of
Galilee." 3
Excavations between 1992 and 2003 have uncovered
the remains of a large church and monastery built circa 500 CE.
Oshri said: "There is no doubt in my mind that these are impressive and
important evidence of a strong Christian community established in Bethlehem a
short time after Jesus' death." He is certain that the structures are
Christian because of the oil lamps with crosses, baptismal font, bronze cross,
and pig bones found on the site. He expects that recognition of Bethlehem in
Galilee as the birth place of Jesus may take a long time. He said: "Business
interests are too important. After all this time, the churches do not have a
strong interest in changing the nativity story."
He is probably right. With the fabulous success of
The Da Vinci Code, and the newly preserved and
translated Gospel of Judas, and the rising interest in
Gnosticism -- one of the three main divisions within
the early Christian movement -- Christians are probably not in a mood to
relocate Jesus' birth from its traditional location. It has been a settled issue
for over a millennium and a half.
Funds for Oshiri's archaeological study have run out. He is attempting to raise additional support so that the investigations
can continue. 7