Ohh Bethlehem

" Where was Jesus born ?" If I ever ask you this question, you would go like " Bethlehem , duh!". And that's about right, or at least that's what most of us would believe reading the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. But the majority of scholars would reject this traditional view and would opt for the idea that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth. [1] And one of the reasons they give is that fact that elsewhere in the gospels or even in acts Jesus was always identified as "Jesus of Nazareth " or "Jesus the Nazareth". We have no mention of reference to Jesus as being born in Bethlehem.  

One of the earliest critics of the Bethlehem tradition Straus [2] argued that the story in Luke about Mary and Joseph moving to Bethlehem for the census is precluded by positive historical facts( more on Luke's census on the next blog ). In light of this, he argues, there is no guarantee to believe that the Bethlehem tradition is historical. He also adds that this narrative was a product of theological motivation to provide a historical narrative for what Luke believes to be a prophecy about the birth of the messiah. 

A prominent catholic scholar of the bible, Raymond Brown points out that the evidence for a historical birth at Bethlehem is undercut by the stark differences between the two infancy narratives and by the silence of the rest of the New Testament. [3] Protestant scholars , like James Dunn, also cast doubt on the Bethlehem narrative for the reasons mentioned above and others. 

In conclusion its safe to say that the consensus among critical scholars is that Its not warranted to assume reliability of the Bethlehem story. One thing I would like to note is that Its is still not outright rejected by most as a all-fictitious narrative. 

The dilemma

To reiterate and lead to other sections of note on nativity, there is this dilemma regarding the birthplace of Jesus. One thing we for sure know about the birthplace of Jesus is that there is no single tradition or source explicitly identifying Jesus being born anywhere other than Bethlehem. And to the contrary, all the sources we have refer Jesus as being from Nazareth. So we have a dilemma. How should we resolve this. There are two explanations for this. One by modern Scholars and another by Luke himself.

As we saw above, modern scholars frequently assert that there was no journey to Bethlehem and hence no birth there. The connection with Bethlehem was theologically driven because Bethlehem was supposedly the place where the Messiah had to be born.. The second explanation is offered by Luke. His Gospel argues that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth and only came to Bethlehem temporarily because of the census of Quirinius. We will discuss the scholars' explanation here in this blog and Luke's Census on the next one.

Scholars' Hypothesis

We established that modern scholars opt for the explanation that the Bethlehem narrative is less of historical narrative and more of theological elaboration of Luke motivated by his beliefs about the birthplace of messiah. 

Criticisms on the Hypothesis

First, as NT Wright called it "hermeneutic of paranoia", Scholars often approach biblical texts with suspicion, analyzing claims critically to determine their validity. However, N. T. Wright warns that excessive skepticism, or a "hermeneutic of paranoia," risks dismissing evidence merely because it aligns with the theological aims of the authors, without proving it was fabricated.

Second thing, the argument that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfills Old Testament prophecy primarily applies to Matthew’s account, as he explicitly connects it to Micah 5:2. Luke, however, does not link Bethlehem to messianic prophecy but instead emphasizes its significance as David's city, with Joseph’s lineage and the census determining the journey.

Another Explanation?

Clayton Croy argued that the consensus position regarding Jesus' birthplace is implausible Here are the reasons he gave for it.

- Micah 5 is the only pre-christian jewish text that could possibly be used as a proof text by the evangelists for birthplace of the messiah

- That passage in Micah 5 is ambiguous in it meaning. It speaks of a "ruler", not "messiah" and mentions "coming forth", not "being born". We could potentially interpret is as such. But again, its ambiguous. In his words "Three of the post-Christian writings that explicitly connect the Messiah and Bethlehem do not even speak of Bethlehem as his birthplace." For more discussion on those post-christian jewish texts on the interpretation of Micah 5:2 , check this section of his book here [4] 

Croy instead argued the reverse, meaning instead of Matthew and by extension Luke being driven by Mic 5:2 to fabricate story, They were driven to Mic 5:2 as a proof-text. In his own words, "The Bethlehem birth of Jesus came to Matthew as a stubborn historical fact. Despite its tension with the strong association of Jesus with Nazareth, it could not be swept aside. This fact sent the first evangelist scurrying to the Old Testament to find references to Bethlehem that might contribute to his prophecy-fulfillment scheme. "

References

[1] Clayton Croy, Escaping Shame: Mary’s Dilemma and the Birthplace of Jesus, p8-9

[2] David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, p189

[3] Raymond Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p513–16

[4] Croy, p19 - 34