John Kesler

I think that it is worth noting that outside of the contradictory birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, the word Bethlehem doesn't appear in the NT except in John 7:42 which, as has been mentioned, may indicate that Jesus wasn't from Bethlehem. To the contrary, John 1:45 refers to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth."

Keep in mind that John contains no birth narrative; John's contention is that Jesus' "origins" are heavenly--Jesus is God in the flesh. The irony, then, is that the man thought to be disqualified by geography is actually validated by his true provenance.

Johnny Skeptic

Does that go for the entire Bible as well? Amaleq 13 gives some good reasons why we should doubt the written records, but in my opening post I did not say that we should doubt the written records. It is my position that there are not any good reasons at all why anyone should automatically accept everything that appears in the Bible just because "the Bible says so."

mens_sana

Archaeology (Archaeological Institute of America), one or two issues back suggests that Jesus may have been born in Bethlehem of Galilee. One can see why the written accounts would have preferred Bethlehem of Judea. At any rate, either Bethlehem of Galilee or Nazareth seem the more likely birthplaces to me.

EverLastingGodStopper

I think the question should be "was Jesus really born?"

And I might take an answer from this site: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

mens_sana

If you have any doubts, ask an Ebionite. :devil3:

Doug Shaver

You might not see any reason. I see plenty.

Gooch's dad

That bit in gJohn makes it utterly clear that there was an early tradition that Jesus was *not* from Bethlehem. It's far too embarassing to early Christians to include that bit if it wasn't actually true.

It can't be considered ironic, since the writer of John makes no mention elsewhere of Jesus actually being from Bethlehem.

The stories in Luke and Matthew about Bethlehem are quite obviously fabrications, as others have pointed out. Are there any serious NT scholars that consider the infancy narratives to be even vaguely historical?

Ecrasez L'infame

This is an interesting article, tho' I distrust the writer's motivations - see the last page and the host address ("Messiahtruth.com" - bullshit detectors set to stun, everyone).

The article finds that, based on the archaeological evidence, Bethlehem of Judea was abandoned in the 5th Century BC and only re-inhabited in the 4th Century AD - so, deserted for 900 years. Bethlehem of Galilee, however, was a thriving little town at the time of Jesus (I mean of course the alleged time of Jesus).

The article concludes that Jesus was more likely to have born in BofG (in accordance with John 7:42), and that Matthew & Luke changed this to BofJ so that they could make Jesus come from David's city and so that they could make him fulfil Micah. (I think it's more likely that M&L first got the two mixed up, and then bent Micah to suit their purposes - after all, he's a minor prophet, and he's not even saying that the Messiah will come from BofJ anyway. But that's a minor detail.)

An interesting theory - but with two problems. 1) Isn't the archaeology hard to believe? 900 years is a long time to leave a satellite of Jerusalem empty, esp if it had religious significance ("David's city"). And why would it have been abandoned? This is a big place, not some mountain village. 2) If BofJ had been abandoned for so long, how come Matthew and Luke didn't know that? Did neither of them (nor anyone they knew that read the early drafts of their gospels) visit the area?

Hmm. As usual, one question answered, two more raised.

Regards

Robert