WinAce

I've been involved in a discussion on this from another forum. It was my impression that there is some question about Jesus' actual birthplace.

From my admittedly limited reading, critical scholars appear to dispute the infancy narratives. Matthew's and Luke's infancy narratives are conceded even by Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown (Birth of the Messiah) to be creative fiction on the basis of mythical elements, historical implausibility and extreme variation.

The one thing they have in common, though, is that they use unlikely devices to have Jesus' parents show up in Bethlehem just in time for him to be born and fulfill prophecy. This is odd, isn't it?

Furthermore, John 7:42, 52 are rather puzzling verses that show other Jews arguing whether a man from Galilee can be Messiah. Curiously, no one is mentioned as claiming Jesus was born in Bethlehem; everyone seems to accept that he hails from a one-camel town that doesn't have anything to do with Messianic expectations, and the argument follows whether this disqualifies him. Like Ahnold running for President, and the ensuing argument taking for granted he's a foreigner, but arguing whether that should still disqualify him.

What is the consensus among scholars about Jesus' place of birth? Are there good reasons for maintaining a Bethlehem origin despite this? Are there indications John was being ironic or something, as opposed to simply being unaware of the Jews' objection being false and taking the high road?

So what's the scoop?

gregor

I'm no scholar, but I have always thought that John 7:42 is particularly problematic for inerrantists.

Inerrantists must accept that Bethlehem was Jesus' birthplace, as this myth is at the heart of his role as Messiah. The Jesus in John's gospel was not born in Bethlehem. This is established even more so for in the next sentence of John 7:

43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. . .

Either John did not know the other gospels called for a birth in Bethlehem or some other explanation is needed. John clearly says that some people did not accept Jesus because he was from Galilee.

Toto

I don't think there could be a scholarly consensus on this since there is so little data to work with.

The references to Bethlehem come out of prophesy, and seem to be late additions to the story.

It has been argued that the references to Nazareth are a corruption of references to Nazorite, meaning a member of a revolutionary sect, and that Nazareth did not exist when Jesus is alleged to have been born there (there are some old threads on this.)

Mark, the earliest gospel, does not say that Jesus was ever born - there were some heretics who thought that he appeared as a fully grown man, preaching the Gospel in Galilee.

Amaleq13

Despite the absence of data, most I've read tend to assume he was born in Nazareth or at least in Galilee.

Vinnie

Despite Toto sentiments, they don't call him "Jesus of Nazareth" for nothing.

""Furthermore, John 7:42, 52 are rather puzzling verses that show other Jews arguing whether a man from Galilee can be Messiah."""

But some have suggested their is a rhetorical point being made here with a secondary irony in that passage and that it may be consistent with a Bethlehem birth.

Jesus, on historical grounds, should be seen as coming from Nazareth. Thats the bottom line on histoirical grounds.

Whether John uses secondary irony or not is unknown.

Mark has Nazareth and there is no theologica lmotivation for such. Matthew has to bring Jesus to Nazareth after Bethlehem and Luke tries to pull Jesus out of Nazareth with a mistaken census. The common thread is Nazareth.

There are significant reasons for attributing the birth of Jesus as being in Bethlehem by later creative followers. None exist for Nazareth and there is even the notion of "can anything good come from Nazareth?" This strongly suggests and elevates a birth in Nazareth over Bethlehem.

Even if there is some sort of secondary irony in John the skeptical questioner seems to think of Nazareth as the hometown as well.

It is also argued that many of Jesus sayings fit in well with the Galilean 20s. Nazareth was in Galilee. Bethlehem was not.

Vinnie

The Danish

If I am from North Carolina, meaning that is where my parents are from and that is where I grew up, but happened to be born in, say, California because my parents were visiting family at the time, am I not from North Carolina? But that doesn't mean that I wasn't born in Califronia.

peace
D

Jabu Khan

I never understood this because I thought it was suspected that the Nazareth may have been a mistranslation of "messiah of the branches" from Latin or Greek I can't remember which. I also thought that Bethlehem would have been mainly a collection of lands belonging to one nomadic horde or whatever in the proximity of Jerusalem at the time and not even a town really.( the time of the prophecy that is.) Is there any truth to any of that as far as you guys know?

spin

The funny thing is that Nazareth is not in the earliest stratum of the gospel material. It is not supported as "synoptic" tradition.In the parallel in Matt we find only "from Galilee". Why say the generic "from Galilee" if the writer had already established the town of Nazareth?

The change to correct Mark's not mentioning Nazareth at all was a simple insertion of "Nazareth between the "from" and the "Galilee", not even a fix-up in grammar is needed. Mark's gospel does know "nazarhnos" which is linguistically unrelated to "Nazareth" -- you cannot derive such a gentilic from such a town name. (And it should be noted that Mark never has "Jesus of Nazareth", but only "Jesus the Nazarene".)

At the same time the Marcan writer is under the impression that Jesus had his home in Capernaum (2:1) and that is how the writer of Matt interprets him, for that writer felt the necessity to move Jesus there in Mt 4:13. The Lucan writer felt no need: he simply omited the data that Jesus had his home in Capernaum.So, sometime after Mark was basically written, there developed a tradition for the term "nazarhnos" to be a gentilic. This seemed to happen in two stages: first the more obvious back-formation of "Nazara" (Mt 4:13 & Lk 4:15) from nazarenos -- and that would seem linguistically transparent if Nazara existed --, then to Nazaret/Q, whose gentilic should naturally be "nazarethnos" or similar.

And it should be stressed that none of the earliest church fathers knew anything about Nazareth, suggesting that the town name was not part of the earliest traditions that they received.But, of course, Capernaum was in Galilee as well and the earliest stratum of the synoptic tradition says that his home was there.


spin.

Vinnie

My understanding is that Peter's home was in Capernaum and thats where Jesus was working out of. Whether that is historical or not is another matter. The data you proved speaks of the locale of a wandering 30 year old itinerant preacher. It hardly constitutes evidence that Capernaum was the hometown of Jesus the child or young adult. In fact, Mark explicitly states Jesus of Nazareth and has him come from there for his baptism so I take it you are wrong on this.

It is extremely probable Jesus came from Galilee. It is also probable Jesus came from Nazareth within Galilee.

Mark 1:9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Mark 1:24 What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!"

Mark 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

So your argument is that none of these verses are translated correctly? I don't read Greek so I'll need to see some cites from some serious academicians with the relevant qualifications in NT studies to buy into that.

Vinnie

spin

Not quite. The first is a correct translation. This is what I wrote previously:

The change to correct Mark's not mentioning Nazareth at all was a simple insertion of "Nazareth" between the "from" and the "Galilee", not even a fix-up in grammar is needed.

But beside the first example, yes, they are all not literally translated. And let me add Mk 16:6.

Unfortunately, I already know this. Yet one doesn't really need much to check out things for yourself.

This is quite an objectionable approach. You are not even going to do the relevant work to alleviate your own ignorance. Let me hold your sweaty little hand for a moment: Get a copy of the ASV and check the verses as it translates them. Look at the Latin Vulgate. Get bible software which allows you to display parallel texts and look at the Greek yourself.

Authority is no substitute for one's own shortcomings.


spin