Steve Mason has probably made the best case possible that we should adopt an “agnostic” position regarding the birthplace of Jesus. But although Mason has examined the literary data with exemplary care, he has failed to demolish the Gospels’ conviction that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod the king. He has not even succeeded in bringing it into doubt.

Mason begins by saying that all the available evidence relating to the place of Jesus’ birth must be taken into consideration before any location can be identified. I could not agree more. But the way Mason applies this principle does not inspire confidence. The archaeological evidence he presents is inadequate and dismissed far too quickly: “There is none,” Mason claims. The Church of the Nativity, which still stands in Bethlehem, is irrelevant to Mason, who claims that Constantine probably selected the site of the church on the basis of the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. But this is certainly wrong: We do have archaeological evidence from the Church of the Nativity.

The key factor in determining where the church should be built was a venerated cave, which lies beneath the apse of the church today (see the photos contained in the sidebar to this article). The cave is not mentioned either by Matthew or by Luke but appears in several other early Christian texts. According to the Christian apologist Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.), when Joseph could not find room at the inn, “he moved into a certain cave near the village, and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed him in a manger.”¹ Justin’s information must derive from a specific Bethlehem tradition, which as a native of Palestine (he was born about 40 miles to the north, in Flavia Neapolis, modern Nablus), Justin was in a position to hear.

Some might argue that Justin invented the cave to fulfill a prophecy of Isaiah: “He [the Lord interpreted by Christians as the Christ] shall dwell in a lofty cavern of a strong rock” (Isaiah 33:16). But it is improbable that Justin invented the tradition. Justin would never have created a story that might lead his readers to conflate Jesus with the pagan deity Mithra, who was said to have been born from a rock and was worshiped in cave temples throughout the Roman world in Jesus’ time.^a Elsewhere, Justin shows that he is fully aware of the danger of parallels being drawn between Jesus and Mithra.

The tradition of Jesus’ birth in a cave was also known independently to the anonymous second-century A.D. author of the Protoevangelium of James. According to this noncanonical gospel, Joseph and a pregnant Mary were traveling to Bethlehem when Mary cried, “Take me down from the ass, for the child within me presses me, to come forth.”

Joseph asked, “Where shall I take you and hide your shame? For the place is a desert.” Joseph guided Mary into a nearby cave, where she gave birth. Later, a brilliant star directed the Magi to the cave.²

The Protoevangelium author’s ignorance of the geography of Palestine (for example, he thought the cave was outside Bethlehem) suggests that he was a native of, perhaps, Egypt or Syria. He must have heard about the cave from returning travelers.

That the cave had become the focus of pilgrimage is confirmed by the early church father Origen (185–254 A.D.), who reports that “there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where he [Jesus] was born.”³ The cave apparently attracted regular visitors, including Origen himself sometime between 231 and 246 A.D.

It is difficult to imagine that the Bethlehemites invented the cave tradition, particularly because, as there is reason to suspect, the cave was not always accessible to Christians in the days of Justin and Origen. According to the church father Jerome (342–420 A.D.), who lived in Bethlehem from 386 A.D. until his death, the cave had been converted into a shrine dedicated to Adonis: “From Hadrian’s time [135 A.D.] until the reign of Constantine, for about 180 years…Bethlehem, now ours, and the earth’s, most sacred spot…was overshadowed by a grove of Thammuz,^b which is Adonis, and in the cave where the infant Messiah once cried, the paramour of Venus was bewailed.”⁴

Local Christians were probably not permitted to worship regularly in what had become a pagan shrine. The fact that the Bethlehemites did not simply select another site as the birth cave suggests that they did not feel free to invent. They were bound to a specific cave.⁵ To preserve a local memory for almost 200 years implies a very strong motivation, a motivation that has nothing to do with the Gospels. With this in mind, let us evaluate the texts cited by Mason.

All that Mason says about the silence of Paul, Acts, Mark, John and some Jewish and Roman historians who fail to mention Jesus’ birthplace is irrelevant. Deductions from silence will appeal only to those who have already made up their minds. The most that we can derive from these sources is that Jesus was believed to have come from Nazareth. Therefore, we must focus exclusively on those two writers who do mention his birthplace—Matthew and Luke.

Mason has well brought out that Matthew and Luke offer us “irreconcilably different” accounts of Jesus’ birth: For Matthew, the story begins in Bethlehem, where Mary and Joseph live; Herod’s slaughter of the innocents forces the family to move to Egypt, then on to Nazareth. In Luke, however, the family lives in Nazareth and only travels to Bethlehem for a census, at which time Jesus is born. What Mason fails to appreciate, however, is that Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2 are completely independent witnesses. One does not borrow from the other, nor do they both draw on a common source. This only enhances the reliability of the points on which they agree. According to Matthew, “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king” (2:1). Luke mentions “the days of Herod, king of Judea” (1:5) as the period of the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist, which was separated from that of Jesus by only a few months. Jesus’ birth took place after a journey “to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem” (2:4). The two evangelists, therefore, independently confirm each other as to the time and place of Jesus’ birth.

With regard to Matthew’s birth narrative (Matthew 1–2), Mason asks whether the evangelist might have written Jesus’ story in a way that makes it seem to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. Mason points out that at the end of each movement in Matthew’s birth narrative we find a quotation from the Old Testament introduced by a formula emphasizing the idea of fulfillment: “All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet” (Matthew 1:22, 2:5, 15, 17, 23). Mason asks: “Is it more likely that the author included a Bethlehem birth for Jesus because he knew that this had in fact happened or because he knew of the passage in scripture [“But you, O Bethlehem,…from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel” (Micah 5:1–3 = Matthew 2:6)] and thought it important to describe Jesus’ career in the language of the prophets?” Mason invites the reader to accept the second option by showing (quite accurately) how, later in the gospel, Matthew tends to adjust the story of Jesus’ life based on certain Old Testament prophesies. For example, Matthew’s version of Jesus entering Jerusalem on the back of a donkey and its colt (Matthew 21:1–9) is strongly influenced by the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 (“Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey”).

But does this mean that Jesus never rode into Jerusalem? Of course not! Matthew’s primary source for the episode of the entry into Jerusalem is Mark 11:1–10, which describes Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt. It was this story in Mark that led Matthew to use Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9 to bring out the significance of the event. In other words, an event evoked the prophecy; the prophecy was not the source of the event, even though it did influence the way it was presented in Matthew’s later gospel.

This example of Matthew’s literary technique establishes the way each of the “fulfillment” prophecies in the first two chapters in his gospel must be approached. Matthew’s source(s) triggered recollections of Old Testament prophecies, which Matthew then incorporated when he rewrote the story. One cannot seriously imagine an evangelist thumbing his way through his sacred scriptures in search of quotations on which to embroider a story. Simple common sense tells us it was much more a question of “Hey! That reminds me of something in Isaiah!”

For the sake of argument, I will accept Mason’s claims that the episodes involving the “mysterious star” guiding the Magi (Matthew 2:1–12) and Herod’s massacre of the innocents (Matthew 2:16–18) are not historical.⁶ But what has this to do with the gospel’s unequivocal and unexceptional assertion that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Mason invites his readers to assume that all the details in Matthew’s birth narrative are fabricated simply because these two episodes are fabricated. But falsehood is not a toxic gas that affects everything around it.

Now let us turn to Luke. Mason recognizes (as do all scholars) that the census mentioned in Luke (2:1–2) took place in 6 A.D., which is far too late to be of any relevance to the birth of Jesus in the days of Herod the king (37–4 B.C.): In other words, Joseph and Mary could not have been traveling to Bethlehem for this census. Thus, the linchpin of Luke’s narrative slips out, and the story fragments into a number of individual, unrelated elements. But the fact that Luke is wrong on X (the census) does not necessarily mean that he is wrong on Y (the location of Jesus’ birth).

Finally, we come to Mason’s conclusions. Mason’s reason for evoking New Testament documents such as Mark and Paul, which say nothing about the birthplace of Jesus, only now becomes apparent. In Mason’s view, the silence of these writers indicates that “it was fairly late when some Christians first became more interested in the question [of where Jesus had been born].” Now, it might be fairly late when some Christians wrote about the birthplace of Jesus, but that says nothing about when they first became interested in or knowledgeable about the subject.

Mason continues, “Even by the time of Matthew and Luke, reliable information about Jesus’ birth was no longer available.” Nothing in his article lays the ground for such a statement. Matthew and Luke are unreliable on some points, but Mason has not demonstrated that the birthplace of Jesus is one of them.

Assuming that reliable information was unavailable to Matthew and Luke, Mason postulates that one of their sources created the story: “These authors [Matthew and Luke] took the basic proposition (probably from an earlier, now-lost source) that Jesus, the son of David, had been born in Bethlehem before Joseph and Mary had become intimate. This proposition could easily have originated in reflection upon Micah 5:2.”

The idea that birth narratives as different as those of Matthew and Luke could go back to a common source boggles the mind. It would have been most interesting to see Mason even begin to attempt to outline the contents of such a source. Matthew, as we have seen, did not generate events on the basis of prophecy. On the contrary, he used prophecies to bring out the meaning of events otherwise attested. There is no hint that Micah 5:2 was of any importance for Luke. It is implausible, therefore, to infer that he derived his choice of Jesus’ birthplace from this prophecy. Nor did he derive it from Matthew, whose version of the childhood of Jesus he did not know. The one option left is that Luke knew it for a fact.

One concluding observation: Mason claims that “establishing some kind of connection with David might have been critical for a messianic figure…in Jesus’ time.” He writes: “A birth in Bethlehem, King David’s place of origin, would naturally cement Jesus’ Jewish messianic affiliation.” But during Jesus’ lifetime, belief that he was the Messiah did not require seeing him as the son of David (and therefore did not benefit from any connection with Bethlehem). In this period, the Davidic Messiah was not the only type of Messiah hoped for. Priest, prophet and teacher figures were also expected.⁷ It would have been much easier for a contemporary to have fitted Jesus into any one of these categories. (Remember, his mother was related to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the first priest [Luke 1:5, 36].) None of these other messianic categories had any connection with Bethlehem. In consequence, Jesus could have been thought of as a Messiah without any reference to Bethlehem.

Furthermore, of the many different categories of Messiah, that of Davidic Messiah would have been the least likely match for Jesus in the eyes of his contemporaries. Indeed, Jesus’ behavior was the antithesis of that of a son of David, who was expected to be a warrior king who would rule with supreme authority. This hope is expressed most vividly in the first-century B.C. Psalms of Solomon:

Jesus, on the contrary, was the friend of tax collectors and sinners. He made no move against the Roman occupiers or the absentee landlords. He had no political agenda, and his compassion for the poor and disadvantaged was individual, not national. Moreover, he seems to have reacted against the idea of a royal Messiah.⁹

If the early church thought of Jesus in terms of Davidic messianism—and it certainly did¹⁰—it was not because of anything he said or did but because of who he was and where he came from. And he came from Bethlehem.

Oh little town of Bethlehem

doug — USA (1/10/2009 10:53:41 AM)

per the abstract ref'd by christmas Doug, the bethlehem of judah referenced in Ruth and Judges must be another bethlehem than that which did not exist in the time of herod. is this debate founded on another case of not having found it proves that it does not exist?

• • • • • • •

Oh Little Town of Anywhere

Brad — USA and Europe (1/4/2009 12:56:37 AM)

Traditions are cool, and they differ for each of us. I love the traditions I grew up with and will continue to sing about Bethlehem and to enjoy the traditional gospel stories at Christmas time. Scholarship and debate are neat because we humans just love to argue and to convince ourselves that we are right and the other guy is wrong. So - nobody is ever going to know, for sure, exactly where Jesus was born, or exactly when, or even IF he was born (with incontrovertible proof, that is). What is important, if you BELIEVE that he was born, is to figure out for yourself WHY. The writers enshrined in the accepted New Testament canon (way to go, Irinaeus), and the many more who did not make the cut, all worked this out with God's help. They invite us to do so as well, and God is still there to assist. Bravo BAR for getting so many folks to think about this issue and, maybe, about the much more important issues behind it. Happy New Year!

• • • • • • •

Where was Jesus born: A journal citation

Doug — (12/25/2008 8:14:01 PM)

http://www.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html Worth having your local librarian pull the full article for you. Bethlehem didn't exist in the reign of Herod. Journal volume/page citation is at this link.

• • • • • • •

Little Town of Bethlehem

Gerry L. Osburn — USA (11/9/2008 12:27:13 PM)

Is it true that there are two Bethlehems, one in Judah and the other within 10 miles from Nazereth in the north?

• • • • • • •

Jesus' birth place

RAY OLIVER — USA (10/19/2008 7:20:14 PM)

Well, Bethlehem or Nazareth is more problematic than it appears to be. We know from the recorded customs and norms at the time of Jesus' birth, that a person was addressed by their 1st name and place of birth. Thus, "Jesus of Nazareth" is supported by the recorded practice at the time. However, the Synoptic gospels are the only reliable and credible accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. These Gospels are the closest 1st hand historical account available. Based on the Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke & John we are told that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Perhaps Jesus' escape from the sword of Herod might have necessitated a document change to Jesus' adopted place of birth. At the moment, the preponderance of the credible evidence supports the finding that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. R.Oliver.

• • • • • • •

Jesus' birthplace

Chris Albert Wells — france (10/8/2008 8:50:02 AM)

Jesus was born in the mind of his beholder: Mark the evangelist. The case for a historical Jesus is chattered by the Dead Sea Scroll Messiahs. They personify two clans within the divided community. The 'Apocalyptic fragment' gives us, as would any local or national assembly, a pie-chart of the forces present. A winning Priestly Messiah clan and a lesser Davidic clan retaining only a few residual benches. The Gospels were written according to the same structure: a winning Jesus Messiah clan opposed to a losing John the Baptist Messiah clan. Don't forget that if on one side of the coin John the Baptist has 'something to do with Qumran', on the other side he is an allegory of an ascetic prophet dressed in camel skins identifying Elijah and implicitly giving John a messianic coverage. To the Gospel writer, John the Baptist is obviously not the one they are waiting for and is dismissed from the scene as soon as the curtain goes up. The evolution of the community, changing from Essene to Christian can be followed by the relationship between the two emblematic Messias, such as rejection and quarrels in Mark followed ten years later by Mathew accepting that the new movement was issued from the Essene antecedents. Jesus represents a 'political etiquette'. The party he represents was not 'born' in Bethlehem the Davidic town nor in Nazareth that never existed as a town in those days.

• • • • • • •

birth place of Jesus

francesco — Italy (9/24/2008 3:44:15 PM)

The real birth place of Jesus seems to be Gamla,also written Gamala, in the Golan Heights. Indeed, Gamla is only town, during Jesus time, that coincides with the description given in the Gospel of Luke.Is also seems that the Nazareth of the time of Jesus is to be found nowhere.I have been to visit the ruins of Gamla : impressive

• • • • • • •

birthplace of Jesus

Bones Rhodes — USofA (9/7/2008 12:10:46 AM)

I am amazed that this discussion is being held on BAR's site: on a fundamentalist Christian website, maybe, but (unless I 'member incorrectly) such items as "did the village of Nazareth even exist at the time of Jesus' birth ?" and " was 'Jesus of Nazareth' mistranslated from 'Jesus the Nazorean'?" have graced the pages of BAR on many occassions. The poster who pointed out that there is NO independent verification of Jesus having even lived is correct: basically, it is all based on the information given in one source - the Bible. Unfortunately for the 'believer', you can't prove something written in one book ONLY by that same book. In many a discussion with believers over the veracity of the Bible, I would pull a copy of 'The Lord Of The Rings' on them; we were then each armed with the same proofs - his that Jesus, Cephas, and Mary had existed and mine that Smeagol, Pippin, and Orcs had since we each had an uncorroborated book stating such. One of the most basic starting points in a debate is : If your view must be held based simply on "belief" , then you have no grounds for debate.

• • • • • • •

let faith take over

francesca — (7/22/2008 9:00:59 AM)

In my heart and mind - Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Whether Bethlehem in those days covered a different area or meant somewhere else - it is not of great importance. The knowledge of the true and exact location of Jesus' birth shouldn't be that important. It does not and will not change his teachings and shouldn't shake our faiths. For those who do not believe, but still choose to post comments here - peace be with you.

• • • • • • •

Birthplace of Jesus

Roderick St.George — Australia (7/15/2008 11:57:55 AM)

Dick Carey, what a refreshingly honest thing to say. Faith is indeed paramount. We do tend to get "blind-itis" from traditions and it's sometimes hard to shake it. As a prof of mine used to say when we students wanted to put a popular slant on a given scripture; "Let the text speak for itself".

• • • • • • •

Birth place of Jesus

Dick Carey — United States (7/9/2008 11:51:01 PM)

I think we, as Christians have somewhat of a hangup equating tradition with fact. There are a lot of things that are correctible in the Bible. Faith is paramount...it is the basis, not where the dirt or rocks are piled.

• • • • • • •

Bethlehem

Thomas Allsteadt — USA (1/22/2008 11:53:23 AM)

Dr Jerome Murphy O'Connor has the most convincing argument, especially when taken in light of Frederick A. Larson's scholarship of the Bethlehem Star and the title of Pater Patriae bestowed on Augustus in February, 2 BC mandating the loyalty oath mentioned by Josephus.

• • • • • • •

Bethlehem - silly

Bar Is Quix — Canada (1/20/2008 12:25:22 PM)

Mason's article is part of a growing trend to publish sensational contrarian theories ala Simcha Jacobovici - lets face it - tabloid jouranlism sells more magazines, books,videos etc. BTW, Mason's stomping grounds at York University is well known for being somewhat of a second tier remedial school, hardly the home of world class thought leadership.

• • • • • • •

o little town of Nazareth

Doug — usa (1/19/2008 10:01:51 PM)

The idea of "Jesus" is a good one; it's just that he was not real in a historical sense. He is an "idea" for us to contemplate. Please read "The Laughing Jesus" by Freke and Gandy. A real eye-opener.....no, make that brain-opener.

• • • • • • •

for the talk back on where jesus was born

kari campbell — idaho (1/16/2008 10:55:33 PM)

it is on the "o little town of Nazareth" that is the answer to your question.

• • • • • • •

birthplace of jesus

werner reis — (1/7/2008 5:12:05 PM)

two excellent well written accounts were presented. i cannot decide with certainty. however, since bethelem is specifically mentioned in the gosples, and nazareth only inferentially, i will stick with tradition and vote for bethlehem. this is an expedient choice only and has no theological significance for me. jesus could not be from the house of david as presented, anyway, because josef is not his father, and the suggested genealogical connection to david requires the bloodline of josef. in other words, being born in bethlehem is fortuitous only. it could have been any town, although "o little town of schechem" would make an awful christmas carol!

• • • • • • •

WHERE WAS JESUS BORN?

Dennis Smith — United States (1/6/2008 10:16:49 AM)

I know there has been some debete about where and when Jesus was born; the simple fact is unless someone finds a stone that Joseph or Mary craved that says "My Son Jesus was Born Here" no one prove 100% where and where it happened. Somethings will always be more of a matter of faith than hard fact.

• • • • • • •

Not Bethlehem

Peggy — USA (1/2/2008 5:24:25 PM)

I think the prophecy in Micah often used to justify the Bethlehem site is a metaphor. The constant theme which runs through the OT is the elder son serving the younger. David was the youngest and least of his brethern. Jesse the patriarch is referred to as the Bethlemite. And any of David and his brothers could also be referred to in a similar manner. So the one who was to be born to rule was the offshoot of a minor branch of the Davidic line (least among the princes of Judah). Therefore,the prophecy would be better understood to refer to the rulership passing not to the chief descendants of David from the preserved geneologies, but to a minor obscure side branch. I think when Herod inquired of the birthplace of the King of the Jews that he was deflected to look away from Jerusalem where most likely the chief descendants (and minor families)had family connections. Jesus had a strong connection with Jerusalem and it may be because he lived there for sometime, perhaps in the lost years. His father was a carpenter (actually he was a construction worker-tekton) who most likely worked on the largest construction site around (the Temple). No where is Bethlehem mentioned as a site of interest past the nativity stories. I think it's more interesting that Jesus is descended from Zerubbabel in both the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.

• • • • • • •

Jesus' Birthplace

Betty E Guzowski — USA (1/2/2008 5:19:24 PM)

I believe that Jesus was far more likely to have been in Nazareth, and the place changed in legend to fit in with alleged prophesies.There is no logic in Joseph going to Bethlehem to be counted in a census rather than be counted where he is actually living. Accounts of his birth in the New Testament and in other early Christian writings are scarcely eyewitness, and vary.

• • • • • • •

re: jesus birth

doug — usa (1/1/2008 11:21:22 AM)

So politically naive! The church's leaders through the centuries haven't been interested in corporate power and suppression? PLEASE read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. Use your cerebral cortex (provided to you as a courtesy by your god, by the way).

• • • • • • •

jesus birth

vernon chism — (12/31/2007 3:37:04 PM)

bethlehem of course like bible tells us that is the end of that

• • • • • • •

oh little town of ___________

doug — (12/29/2007 4:09:46 PM)

If Bethlehem was not even founded until many decades after the supposed date of birth, then how could Bethlehem by Jesus' hometown? Now, the WAS a Bethlehem in the time of Herod in the North of the country....but being born in North Bethlehem wouldn't have a messiah coming out of the House of David so the authors just lied....uh, made it up. What was that 9th Commandment again? Was it only lying about your neighbor...is lying in general OK though if you are an early church official?

• • • • • • •

Where Jesus was born

Jimmy Bickell — USA (12/27/2007 11:50:06 PM)

The Bible is the inspired word of God . We can believe what the NT birth narratives tells us. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Why mess withn veiws that contradict the Bible.

• • • • • • •

Jesus was born in Bethlehem

Grace Hajdu — USA (12/27/2007 9:00:29 PM)

I believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecies. It is hard to believe that Mary, mother of the infant church, would not have told the apostles or anyone who would listen the story of the miracles that took place there. All mothers I know love to relate where they gave birth to their children. It seems natural to me that the women of that time would have wanted to know where Jesus was born. Don't we do as much with our presidents and other leaders? We turn their birthplaces into shrines, museums, etc. We make road signs, and put info. in magazines and public places of interest. The star was miraculous. How many babies have magi, or important people travel so far to visit them and bring them the three gifts? Also, how many children have to die because the present ruler is fearful of a baby taking his throne? These events in a world without TV seem far beyond the ordinary and would have been told and remembered for generations! Thus as Micah says,"But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah...from you shall come forth for me one who is to be the ruler in Israel..."

• • • • • • •

Walker

Reuben — USA (12/27/2007 10:49:28 AM)

In regards to your query concerning the when and where of Jesus' birth, I have postulated my own beliefs. I agree with Bethlehem because of the census to be taken.

• • • • • • •

birth place of Jesus

henry- — usa (12/26/2007 9:36:46 PM)

If the jesus spoken of by the Professor in toronto was born in Nazareth, the He couldn't be the Messiah, Prince of Peace, or Saviour. The bible prophecy indicates that the Saviour, Messiah, etc. will be born in Bethlehem. How does BAS have so much success finding people like Prof. Mason?

• • • • • • •

Where was Jesus born

Deedra Rowe — usa (12/26/2007 5:04:49 PM)

O little town in Israel.......

• • • • • • •

Birth of Jesus - location

Brian Baker — USA (12/26/2007 4:37:02 PM)

All ancient documentation of credible sources either concur with or fail to dispute that Jesus / Yeshua was born in that same Bethlehem of Ephratah in Judea listed in the prophecy of Micah, and the eyewitness and documented testimonials found in the 50 A.D. Gospel of Luke, and the 55 A.D. gospel of Matthew. Matthew especially, written and published amongst living hostile witnesses at Jerusalem and present scrolls and availability to check against his claims that Jesus was Messhiach. The Gospels, written and testified to by the total silence of any refutation as to their credibility or writing after the fact, as did Josephus complain that the witnesses died off and records became unavailable...there is not ONE like complaint against the NT until some atheistic quacks took over higher criticism in Germany in the 1800s. Mark, whose Gospel was written post geneaology, found as to be this testimony through Mark in Alexandria passing the history down to Clement of Alexandria 130 years later, demonstrates through manuscript fragments extant, that Quelle or "Q" is a horrible hoax on a society looking for any excuse it can, to not believe into Jesus. I challenge BAR / BAS to examine a paper I have written, which shows that the majority of the NT was written in 47 -57/58 A.D., and that Paul and Peter could not have been executed any later than June 29 of 58 A.D., and most likely in June 29 of 57 A.D. The most credible of ancient sources, when examined along the lines of being a legal prospectus of sound historical tradition passed down, in place of myth making, will thoroughly discredit the pseudo-Scholars of today who scoff at the past, in order that they may exercise an Orwellian rewrite of actual history into their own myths, to make their name great in the Earth and the new P.T. Barnums of the academic world.

• • • • • • •

where was Jesus born?

R. Lynn Long — usa (12/26/2007 2:51:46 AM)

Where my butt! How about just getting down to the when? 4, 5, or 6 BCE? How about if Jesus was closer to fifty- as one Gospel recounts?

• • • • • • •

Jesus Birthplace

Peggy — OR (12/22/2007 1:58:36 PM)

I think Jesus was born in Jerusalem. The shepherds were directed to The City of David and that isn't Bethlehem because it never a city and David never spent any time there after his youth. The City of David is the old part of Jerusalem. And I think there is a lot of confusion about Jesus alleged connections with the village of Nazareth. I think all that is a concocted story to explain a misunderstanding of the Hebrew/Aramaic words. I think Jesus' title was in the Aramaic, Jesus the Prophet, not Jesus the Nazarean. I'm not a scholar so shoot me down.

• • • • • • •

Where was Jesus born

Dennis Gerber — USA (12/21/2007 1:12:51 PM)

While getting biblical scholars to agree is probably as difficult as getting economists to reach a conclusion, it should not be that difficult to define the rules of a debate/disagreement. In the hard sciences, a postulate is accepted until either of two things occur. 1) it is proven wrong, or 2) a better postulate comes along. This should be acceptable to any scholar endowed with a reasonable amount of ethical integrity. My assesment is that Mr Mason adheres to this construction of a postulate, while Mr Murphy-O’Connor seems to argue that if others believe the traditional myth, and it cannot be disproved, then it must be true. I prefer a bit more logic support postulates that I accept.

• • • • • • •

The First Born of the Kindom of God through a Resurrection to life.

Michael — USA (12/20/2007 11:59:08 PM)

Luke had a perfect understanding of all things (1:3) Luke (2:11,14,15 say in the city of David, Bethlehem) His eye witness source? Mary Luke 2:19,51 (she kept these things in her heart)

• • • • • • •

Birth place of Jesus

Al Cav — (12/20/2007 3:40:23 PM)

It can only be Bethlehem. If that is what the Bible says, then that is the truth. Case closed!

• • • • • • •

O Little Town of Bethlehem

Ted Profitt — USA (12/19/2007 9:56:47 PM)

Both were intersting articles. First of all, not all agree with the writers that Mark was first. Eusebius notes that Matthew's gospel was first and written originally in Hebrew/Aramaic and later reworked into its present Greek form. Second, given the virginity and pregnancy of Mary, it's not surprising that little is made of Bethlehem by the earliest Christians. However, if Luke did do oral history interviews as he claims to have done, then Mary herself may have been the sources of his information. If O'Connor is correct that the proto-gospel he mentions comes from Egypt, might some Egyptians have heard of a Bethlemite fleeing Herod? One account has Jesus in a manger at birth, the other in a house TWO YEARS later. It is we who put the two accounts together under the Christmas tree or in the movie, "The Nativity Story," or Mason's article. Mark's gospel dealing with Jesus as power against the demonic does well to go without a powerless baby.Mangers have no place in such a narrative. I was born in a hospital in Missouri, but have lived most of my life in California. A friend once remarked that he and I were native Californians. I consider the town I lived in from tenth grade on to be my home town. Even had we remained in Missouri, I would not consider myself from Richmond Heights, because we didn't live there, but in a nearby St. Louis suburb. So, too, was Jesus, from Bethlehem, a Nazarene. Yours, Ted Proffitt.Ph.D.

• • • • • • •

Birth of Jesus

Jerry Nyberg — United States (12/19/2007 4:55:07 PM)

So does that make Matthew and Luke and the New Testament wrong? It does state that He was born in Bethlehem.

• • • • • • •

Place of Jesus' Birth

Terry Parkman — USA (12/19/2007 3:42:54 PM)

It seems as though Steve Mason enjoys arguing from silence and making assumptions upon the text based upon what is not there in the writings of Paul, Mark, and John. When he begins to discuss what is written about Jesus being born in Bethlehem, he again makes assumptions that Jesus' birth account in Bethlehem was manipulated by the original authors to fit prophecy. For the biblically and critically uneducated reader, this argument would seem believable. However, since he is so keen on searching out the evidence available, one would think that the writings about the birthplace of Jesus would be sufficent evidence for him in light of the lack of other evidence. But, since his soapbox demands an argument, it seems more fitting for Mr. Mason to draw assumptions from silence rather than delving into evidence he's been given. Finding out the truth is one thing, beginning with a bias toward accomplishing a personal agenda is another.

• • • • • • •

Jesus' birthplace

Don — U.S. (12/19/2007 10:12:59 AM)

Come on people, don't you recognize intellectual gibberish when you read it? If Jesus was born in some place other than where the scriptures state, then the scriptures are in error, the whole Bible is in error and, therefore is not to be trusted. Make a choice! Some of you have made the wrong choice--one more piece of evidence as to the deceptions of the last days.

• • • • • • •

Nazareth seems the most likely candidate

Deane Stuart — (12/14/2007 8:48:48 AM)

In "Bethlehem... Of Course" by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, the centre point of Prof Murphy-O’Connor's argument is a statement by Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 78.6.; c160?): "he moved into a certain cave near the village, and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed him in a manger”. Prof Murphy-O’Connor argues that "Justin’s information must derive from a specific Bethlehem tradition, which as a native of Palestine (he was born about 40 miles to the north, in Flavia Neapolis, modern Nablus), Justin was in a position to hear". He thus creates the impression that Justine Martyr was in Palestine when he received the tradition and that he received it from Palestinian Christians who were sufficiently rooted in the area to have maintained it in unbroken succession for the days of James the Just (the brother of Jesus). This is not so: · Justine was a pagan from Flavia Neapolis, a pagan settlement founded by Vespasian in 72 and we have no reason to think that he ever had direct contact with Christians while living in Palestine (or Syria for that matter) in his youth. He traveled abroad to receive his education in philosophy and converted to Christianity in about 130 at Ephesus at about the age of 30 years. We have no reason to think that he ever returned to Palestine again before his martyrdom in 165. · The (Jewish) Christians of Judea fled the territory to Damascus before the siege of Jerusalem and never returned after the destruction of Jerusalem. We have no historical evidence of what traditions about the birth of Jesus they may have possessed. Whatever traditions of theirs Justine would receive would have to have been from a stay in Damascus, but there is no evidence that he did in fact ever stay in (or even pass through) Damascus. · Whatever traditions may have developed in Bethlehem concerning the place of Jesus' birth were not derived from an unbroken chain of tradition stretching back to the time of James the Just, for the origin of the Christians of Bethlehem derived from the conversions after 70 from people who had no previous knowledge of (much less historic traditions about) Jesus. Where did Justine receive the information about "a certain cave"? We do not know. The tradition is certainly secondary embellishments of the narratives of Luke and Matthew and of the same Mithraic character as the shepherds of Luke and the much later dating of the birth event to the 25 December. Justine was indeed concerned about syncretism between Christianity and Mithraism, but that would not have prevented him from accepting traditions that he believed were historical, even if they had a Mithraic character. The Protoevangelium of James (140-170) merely confirms that such secondary accretions to the basic infancy narratives were already in wide circulation amongst gentile Christians at the time of Justine's Dialogue with Trypho (as well as a tendency to harmonize conflicting Gospel traditions). If the cave tradition is accepted as having a historical base then it is the only element of the material in this work that is not derived from the Old Testament or the canonical Gospels that is historical, for the rest of the material is clearly non-historical embellishment. He writes "This example of Matthew’s literary technique establishes the way each of the “fulfillment” prophecies in the first two chapters in his gospel must be approached. Matthew’s source(s) triggered recollections of Old Testament prophecies, which Matthew then incorporated when he rewrote the story. One cannot seriously imagine an evangelist thumbing his way through his sacred scriptures in search of quotations on which to embroider a story. Simple common sense tells us it was much more a question of “Hey! That reminds me of something in Isaiah!”. However, Matthew (and Luke as well, for that matter) clearly accepts non-historical, mythical material, that is in fact derived form "searching the scriptures" to find out more about Jesus; the tradition of Mary's virginity being the classic example of this. Luke and Matthew are indeed independent witness to early Christian infancy traditions of the Bethlehem and the virgin birth, however, we have no reason to suppose that either of these elements are historic. Once in circulation and accepted these traditions about "a certain cave" become geographically rooted by the Christians of Bethlehem by attaching them to the best available candidate in Bethlehem "this particular cave". Sadly, the centre of Prof Murphy-O’Connor's argument does not hold. We do not know where Jesus was born, but, if we must hazard a guess, Nazareth seems by far the most likely candidate.

• • • • • • •

Birth of Jesus

Troy — (12/13/2007 5:55:23 PM)

To Paulette and others about the census--did you read both articles-both pro and con said the census did not happen at this time .

• • • • • • •

Where Was Jesus Born (and When)

Philip Jones — USA (12/13/2007 1:24:52 PM)

Steve Mason and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor present arguments pro and con Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace with great expertise. For this they should be thanked. I would like to make a brief comment on Matthew's use of prophecy. Though Matthew does have Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two beasts to fulfill a misunderstood prophetic parallelism, his usual procedure is to explain the event with the prophecy. If he can't find a prophecy to explain the event, he makes one up (Matt 2:23). Note Matthew's used of Isaiah ch 7. By no stretch of the imagination is Isaiah 7 a Messianic prophecy. If the predicted Emmanuel was to be the Messiah, Ahaz would have been even more panicked, not comforted. I think Matthew had a virgin birth he needed to explain with prophecy. He may have searched the proto-Masoretic text, but Isaiah 7:14 in MT talks about a girl already pregnant. So he searches the Septuagint and, voila, Isaiah 7:14 (LXX) refers to a parthenos (virgin) who shall conceive etc. Matthew finds his prophecy where he can and lifts is (almost) verbatim from LXX. Luke, of course, cares not for prophecy, only that the principals are filled with the Holy Spirit. God bless Steve and Jerome, BAR and all of us.

• • • • • • •

Birthplace of Jesus

Lee — (12/13/2007 11:51:31 AM)

I believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem because the Bible tells me so.

• • • • • • •

Where was Jesus Born

T. Moran — (12/13/2007 9:17:51 AM)

Murphy-O'Connor is clearly very intelligent, for he agrees with me completely! Further, while Jesus lived in Nazareth he would have been known as "the builder" or "the carpenter". In Capernaum he was known to be from Nazareth, whence he came to Capernaum. The Roman and Jewish authorities would have picked up this title: the Romans because that is how this trouble-maker (as they clearly saw him) was known; and the temple authorities because they wouldn't want to identify or pulicize any possible connection to the awaited Messiah. Bethlehem is the better candidate, but the debate will go on. TM

• • • • • • •

O Little Town Of

Dr David McClary — USA (12/13/2007 3:18:58 AM)

How about a place in Egypt where Christ started his life? Such a waste of children in Bethleham to exterminate a King who left for Egypt days before they were killed.

• • • • • • •

Where was JESUS born?

Joan Hubert — USA (12/13/2007 12:20:09 AM)

Doesn't the Bible say "Bethlehem of Judea?" I am just glad that HE was born. Thank GOD.

• • • • • • •

Where was Jesus born?

Joseph Cairns Jr — The United States of America (12/13/2007 12:06:15 AM)

If both Bible scholars and laity alike believe in Inspiration of the Almighty God's Spirit upon the Scriptures, then Micah 5:2 prophesies that it would be Beth-le-hem Eph-ra-tah in which Matthew 2:5-6 confirms with and in its fulfillment of. Unless we care to add and take away from the scripture; and therefore care not to believe that some scriptures are no longer Canonical and Inspired from God; I think I'll stay with G-d's totally inspired word from Genesis through Revelation; and I pray you and your readers do as well.

• • • • • • •

Where was Jesus born?

Ed Wedin — USA (12/12/2007 10:46:53 PM)

My younger son was born in Venezuela. Lived there a year, then we returned to Houston, where he was reared. So he is from Houston, but born in Maracaibo, just as Jesus was born in Bethlehem, because Joseph had to return to his city, but Jesus was reared (not raised) in Nazareth. Poor scholarship.

• • • • • • •

O Little Town Of Nazareth

James McGrath — USA (12/12/2007 10:21:05 PM)

I'd have to go with Nazareth, since being called 'Jesus of Nazareth' points very strongly in that direction, and there is no way to fit together the details from the two stories in the New Testament that locate Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com

• • • • • • •

Where Christ was born

Helena Lehman — USA (12/12/2007 9:15:58 PM)

The Gospel of Luke is part of the Word of God, and it clearly says that, though Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, Christ was born in Bethlehem - also giving a plausible reason for it - a Census that can be proven to have taken place. Meanwhile, Matthew's Gospel makes it clear that the Wise Men worshipped Christ as a toddler, not a newborn, and that Mary was living in a house in Bethlehem when the Wise Men showed up. The traditional Nativity story ties these two disparate events together, and this has proven to be very misleading. Using the Sacred Astronomy known to the Wise Men, I've written a free 24-page report available in the Free Articles section at www.pillar-of-enoch.com, which postulates that Christ's Birthday may have been in September around the time of Sukkot, and not in December at all. However, if Christ were born in September, He would have been conceived in the December prior, possibly during Chanukah. I also discuss the significance of the Star of Bethlehem, and the other heavenly signs that may have been visible at Christ's birth, which I strongly believe was around 3 BC. Numerous reasons for assuming this year are given in my thought-provoking essay. Happy Holidays!

• • • • • • •

Where was Jesus Born

Kristina — USA (12/12/2007 7:26:50 PM)

While reseaching one day, I found a Bethlehem just outside of Nazareth... so, perhaps both are correct.

• • • • • • •

response to Where was Jesus Born?

Jim Demello — China (12/12/2007 7:04:41 PM)

Historians must have thick skin, especially when they want to revision bible history. This sounds like an article written by one of the Jesus Seminar fellows; those guys looking for some domino effect to topple the belief in the special nature of the bible. It isn't just a history book. Jesus was born in Bethleham. Well talk it over at the Paradise Cafe.

• • • • • • •

birth of Jeusus

Paulette — US (12/12/2007 5:22:07 PM)

what about the census where Joseph & Mary were expected to travel to Bethlehem?

• • • • • • •