One of the symbols of the Christmasat least in Spain, is the birth or nativity scene. It is named after the place where the birth of Jesus is traditionally located. But, Was he really born in Bethlehem?
There are experts who believe that, in reality, it was not in this town in the current Palestinian territories where the historical Jesus was born. The story of Bethlehem, the shepherds, the Three Wise Men and the manger may have arisen later, when Christians attempted to link the story of Jesus with an ancient Jewish prophecy.
Some experts suggest that Jesus was born 175 kilometers away, in the small town of Nazareth, where his family was originally from and where he grew up.
However, some archaeologists even suggest that Jesus could have been born in another city also called Bethlehem. just 7 kilometers from MarÃa and David’s hometown.
According to the traditional story set forth in Christian belief, Jesus was born in a manger in a town called Bethlehem in Judea. This city, about 10 km south of Jerusalem, is now located in the West Bank and has become a key pilgrimage point for Christians around the world.
The best evidence we have that this is the true birthplace of Jesus comes from the Bible. Dr. Clyde Billington, biblical scholar and executive director of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology, told the Daily Mail: “Bethlehem in Judea is mentioned in Matthew, Luke and John as the birthplace of Christ.”
After 2,000 years, any physical evidence that Jesus may have left behind was long lost, meaning The Bible is all we have to go on.
Although these sources are distant and naturally quite partial, they are the closest to a historical source that scholars can obtain about the facts of the life of Jesus.
It is believed, for example, that the gospel of matthew It was written around the year 80 AD. C., which places it about 50 years after the death of Jesus.
Billington adds: “I believe, like most Christian scholars, that the three Gospels were written in the first century AD. Thus, the identification of Bethlehem of Judea as the place of Christ’s birth dates back to the earliest days of the Church.”
Based on that evidence, Dr. Billington says he is “convinced that “Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”
In archaeological terms, the evidence is scarce, but researchers have at least found evidence that Bethlehem of Judea is old enough for this story to make sense.
An archaeological study of Bethlehem carried out in 1969 discovered a series of ceramic pieces dating from the Iron Age, approximately between the years 1000 and 586 BC. c.
In 2016, Dr. Joan Taylorfrom King’s College London, and Dr. Shimon Gibsonof the University of North Carolina and Charlotte, conducted a subsequent excavation near the Church of the Nativity. Their work uncovered a series of vessels and artifacts dating to the 1st century AD. c.
At the time, Dr Gibson said: “We are digging a trench down to the earliest levels and we have, without a doubt, pottery dating back to the time of Jesus.” “What we have been able to demonstrate so far is the existence of a town from the time of Jesus. This is very important“, says.
Part of the reason why many scholars doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea is that even the best biblical sources do not all suggest this to be true.
The teacher Helen Bonda leading expert in Christian history at the University of Edinburgh, says: “Our first gospel—that of Mark—begins its story with the ministry of Jesus and says nothing about his birth. And the apostle Paul, who knew the brothers about Jesus, says nothing about Bethlehem”.
Likewise, even the Gospels that state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea cannot agree on the details. The gospel of Matthew suggests that the holy family lived in Bethlehem and only moved later to flee from the massacre of innocents perpetrated by King Herod after the birth of Jesus.
The history of the census
Luke, on the other hand, gives us the story that will be most familiar to many Christians. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph begin in Nazareth but they need to go to Bethlehem to be counted in a Roman census.
However, this is where things start to fall apart for the Bethlehem narrative. Bond says: “Luke suggests that the census covered the entire Roman world and that the people had to return to their ancestral homes.
“There is no evidence of a census throughout the empire at this time, and although ancient people had to go to a local center to be counted, they did not have to find an ‘ancestral home,’ whatever that actually means,” the expert says.
Biblical historians have worked hard to try to find what Luke might be referring to, but this census just doesn’t seem to be a real event.
There was a small census at that time implemented by the Roman legate of Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinusbut this was about a decade after the birth of Jesus and would not have affected the holy family in Galilee.
“It seems as if Luke needed to take the holy family to Bethlehem, remember that there was a census at that time, and includes it in his story” says Professor Bond.
The reason the Gospel writers seem so determined that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is found in an ancient Jewish prophecy. The Old Testament prophet Micah He predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea, considered the city of King David.
If Jesus was going to be the Jewish Messiah, then he needed to have been born in Bethlehem. Bond says this is “almost certainly” the reason why later Gospel writers insist that Jesus was born in the city despite its inconsistencies.
This tradition probably came up some time after Jesus’ death, around the time the later gospels were written.
Professor Bond adds: “I don’t think everyone thought that the Messiah would necessarily be born in Bethlehem. But once it was believed that Jesus was the Messiah and a ‘son of David’, then It made sense to link his birth with David’s.”.
Another Bethlehem
However, if Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea, the question remains as to what his birthplace could have been. A theory that has sparked a lot of controversy is that there could be another Bethlehem in addition to the Bethlehem of Judea.
Aviram Oshrian archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, believes that Jesus was actually born in a small town called Bethlehem of Galilee, more than 100 kilometers from Bethlehem of Judea.
After spending more than a decade excavating the Galilee site, Oshri is now convinced that the ancient town near Nazareth It is the true birthplace of Jesus.
The key to his theory is the notion that it would not have made sense for a Pregnant Mary will travel to Bethlehem of Judea from his hometown of Nazareth.
In statements to Times of IsraelOshri said: “How could a nine-month pregnant woman travel 175 kilometers on a donkey to Bethlehem of Judea? “It makes much more sense that she would have traveled seven kilometers, the distance between Nazareth and Bethlehem of Galilee.”
During his years of excavation, he found a huge church from the Byzantine era with a hidden cave, parts of a wall around the village and a two-story building that could be a guest house or inn.
These details offer surprisingly close parallels to the biblical story of Jesus’ birth and could date back to the 1st century AD. C. On the other hand, Oshri points out the well-documented scarcity of archaeological finds from the 1st century in Bethlehem of Judea.
However, Oshri’s theories have been widely criticized and Israel Antiquities Authority has refused to consider the idea or allow further investigation.
Likewise, although Oshri has shown that there could have been a settlement in Bethlehem of Galilee, there is still nothing to explain why the holy family would have gone there. Billington says that “there is no single ancient source” that can place the birth of Jesus in this place.
However, there is a much simpler answer that has been in front of experts all along. Instead of assuming that the holy family undertook an arduous journey because of a dubious census or that They traveled to a dark nearby townit makes much more sense that Jesus was simply born in his hometown of Nazareth.
We know from evangelical sources that Mary and Joseph lived in the small Galilean town of Nazareth and that It was probably where Jesus grew up.
Unlike Bethlehem, this town did not have prophetic fame, but it is the most constant element in the biblical account of the life of Jesus.
Professor Bond says: “There is no specific evidence, but Jesus is always known as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and none of our early sources say anything about Bethlehem. Most likely it was simply Nazareth, where the family lived.”
Bond says that many critics now suggest that Bethlehem was only added later to enhance “the Davidic heritage of Jesus.”
“The most critical scholars will argue that the tradition is late, that the stories are completely different in Matthew and Lukethat it is easy to see how the Bethlehem tradition arose and that the great men of ancient times tended to attract stories of great and miraculous births,” adds Bond.