My favourite Christmas carol is O Little Town of Bethlehem. I love how it expresses a mystery: the Saviour of the world graces the earth in profound humility. Indeed, “How silently the wondrous gift is given!” Imagine my frustration when a popular documentary cast doubt on the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, assuming that it was mere propaganda to boost Christian assertions that Jesus was the Messiah.

Do the New Testament Gospels promote Jesus at the expense of truth? Matthew and Luke both claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but they do not seem to have consulted each other. The Gospels offer diverse portrayals of Jesus that can be difficult to harmonize. This article will look at some of the key difficulties surrounding the question of Jesus’ birthplace and propose how they may be reconciled. The Gospel writers valued truth and did not fabricate claims, but we must understand their intentions.

BETHLEHEM IN SCRIPTURE

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who are referred to as the four Evangelists, were not trying to communicate mere facts or explain what the Old Testament meant. Rather, they used the Scriptures and interpretive customs of their ancestral faith to help their audiences comprehend what Christ’s advent meant. To authenticate God’s present activity, they showed how it reflected ancient Scripture.

Matthew was most explicit, professing that Jesus’ birth gave new and fuller significance to Hebrew Scripture (see Matthew 2:17, 23; 4:14). Luke was more subtle. Referring to the holy family “going up” to Bethlehem (see Luke 2:4), nine kilometres south of Jerusalem, Luke used the verb that Jews typically used for pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Luke also referred to Bethlehem as “the City of David,” the normal epithet for Jerusalem. This nuance suggests that, rather than Bethlehem giving significance to Jesus’ birth, Jesus’ birth gave significance to Bethlehem.

RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA?

When considering the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it’s important to note that the Evangelists did not invent this tradition. It preceded the Gospels, but each writer developed it uniquely. Our earliest sources for the idea that first-century Jews expected the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem are Christian—namely, Matthew 2 and John 7. No Jewish writings from the sixth century BCE to the first century CE insist that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem. Matthew alone explicitly connected it to Micah 5 (see Matthew 2:6). This suggests that the Gospel writers knew of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and found different ways to convey its messianic significance, not the other way around.

Of course, Jesus did not need to be born in Bethlehem to rightfully claim to be Israel’s Messiah any more than Solomon needed to be born in Bethlehem to legitimately claim David’s throne (see 1 Kings 1:39). David may have been born and anointed in Bethlehem (see 1 Samuel 16:1-13), but most of his royal offspring were not (see 2 Samuel 5:14). Jesus was accepted and proclaimed as Messiah without reference to his birth. Other messianic claimants were accepted without being born in Bethlehem, such as Theudas and Judas the Galilean (see Acts 5:36-37).

Nevertheless, none of the church’s ancient antagonists disputed the claim that Bethlehem was Jesus’ birthplace, and no ancient source claims that he was born elsewhere.

JESUS’ HOMETOWN

Some readers of the Gospels may wonder, if Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, then why is he referred to as Jesus of Nazareth? All four Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph lived in Galilee before Jesus’ birth (see Luke 1:26-27; 2:4). Matthew omits this detail but says that they decided to go to Nazareth after Bethlehem and Judea had become dangerous (see Matthew 2:21-23). Because Matthew refers to Jesus being in a house and suggests that the holy family might have returned to Bethlehem rather than moving to Galilee, many interpreters infer that Matthew portrays Bethlehem as their permanent home.

Some readers have difficulty reconciling these accounts and wish the Gospel writers had explained more. Did the holy family live in Bethlehem or were they just there to register, or both? Did they move to Nazareth to avoid danger or because it was their home, or are both true? Are these concepts even contradictory? Some of the details below will help answer these questions.

LUKE’S REGISTRATION

Luke indicates that Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem for a tax registration (see Luke 2:1-5). Although historians have not successfully identified the exact event to which Luke refers, his description suggests that they had relatives and a support system in Bethlehem. The word “inn” (see Luke 2:7 KJV) is a misleading translation. The Greek word, kataluma, more likely refers to a guest room than a commercial inn. The scenario is plausible: relatives accommodate a young expectant couple who extend their stay after the child is born.

The holy family’s movements to and from Judea are recorded in Luke 2:4 and 2:39, suggesting that they fulfilled “everything required by the law of the Lord”—namely, circumcision, ritual cleansing and customary sacrifice—during a long stay in Judea. In the first century, the father, mother or an elder typically circumcised Jewish boys at home or nearby. No command required parents to transport their boys to a specific person or place, but Luke says that Mary and Joseph travelled to Jerusalem and the temple after baby Jesus’ circumcision (see Luke 2:21-24). Jesus could have been circumcised and named in Nazareth or nearby, but an extended stay in Bethlehem fits Luke’s storyline better, while also comporting with Matthew’s.

BIRTHPLACE CONTROVERSY

As with the other Gospels, John does not call into question whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem (see John 7:40-44). However, John does portray controversy about whether Jesus’ origins qualified him as Messiah. When Nathanael, who became one of the disciples, asks, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46 NRSV), he echoes a trope in John’s Gospel about people mistaking the significance of Jesus’ origins. Jesus’ opponents may have thought that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, but the joke was on them. John likely relied on his audience already knowing, perhaps from the Synoptic Gospels, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Those in the narrative who doubted Jesus’ credentials were laughably out of touch.

A DEEPER MEANING

We may not know all the specifics about Jesus’ birth, but the differences in the Gospel narratives are hardly irreconcilable. Unique details from each Gospel show us that they did not simply copy each other. They invite us to contemplate the significance and the implications of their narratives.

For ancient writers, truth equalled fact plus spiritual significance. Separating “mere fact” from deeper meaning was invalid and having just one witness did not automatically falsify a claim. The Gospels faithfully convey the truth by highlighting Jesus’ significance alongside his biography. Equipped with facts about Jesus, their job was to convey meaning.

That Jesus was born in Bethlehem was such a fact. We have explored just some of its significance. With this perspective, I heartily and reflectively sing O Little Town of Bethlehem, because it resounds with a Gospel truth.

DR. ISAIAH ALLEN is assistant professor of religion at Booth University College in Winnipeg.

Illustration: Prixel Creative/Lightstock.com/Lisa Suroso 

This story is from: