Not in Bethlehem: scientists uncover the place where Jesus could have been born

There is a commonly held belief that Jesus was born on Christmas Day in Bethlehem, a story that most likely does not correspond to historical reality. However, many historians and archaeologists do not confirm this.

According to scholars, the story of Bethlehem, shepherds, wise men, and a manger could have emerged only later, when Christians tried to connect the story of Jesus with ancient Jewish prophecy. Instead, some experts suggest that Jesus could have been born in the small town of Nazareth (a city in Galilee, northern Israel), MailOnline writes.

Some archaeologists even suggest that Jesus could have been born in the second Bethlehem, just 7 km from the hometown of Mary and David.

Traditional history

According to the traditional story, as set forth in the Christian faith, Jesus was born in a manger in a town called Bethlehem of Judea. This city, located about ten kilometers south of Jerusalem, is now located in part of the Palestinian West Bank and has become a key pilgrimage destination for Christians around the world. The best proof that this is the true birthplace of Jesus is in the Bible. After 2000 years, any physical evidence that Jesus might have left behind is long gone, which means that the information in the Bible is the only thing historians have.

Although these sources are distant and naturally quite biased, they are as close to a historical source as scholars can get to understanding the facts of Jesus' life.

In terms of archaeology, the evidence is rather scarce, but researchers have at least found evidence that Bethlehem of Judea is an ancient enough city to make sense of the story. Archaeological research in Bethlehem in 1969 uncovered several pieces of pottery dating to the Iron Age from about 1000 to 586 BC.

Later excavations near the Church of the Nativity in 2016 were conducted by Dr. Joan Taylor of King's College London and Dr. Shimon Gibson of the University of North Carolina and Charlotte. Their work revealed a number of pots and artifacts dating back to the first century AD.

"We were able to prove the existence of the village since the time of Jesus. This is very important," they explained.

But is it really Bethlehem?

One of the reasons why many scholars doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea is that even the best biblical sources do not indicate that this is true.

"Our oldest gospel begins with the ministry of Jesus and says nothing about his birth. Nor does the Apostle Paul, who knew Jesus' brothers, say anything about Bethlehem," comments Professor Helen Bond, a leading expert on Christian history at the University of Edinburgh.

Moreover, even the Gospels, which claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, cannot agree on the details. Matthew's Gospel says that the holy family lived in Bethlehem and moved only later to escape King Herod's massacre of innocents after Jesus' birth. Luke, on the other hand, tells us the story that will be most familiar to many Christians. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph start out in Nazareth, but need to travel to Bethlehem to be counted in the Roman census.

However, it is here that things begin to fall apart for the Bethlehem narrative. According to Prof. Bond, there is no evidence of a census being taken throughout the empire today, and while ancient people had to go to a local center to be counted, they did not have to return to where they were born.

Why does Bethlehem matter?

The reason that the Gospel writers seem so determined to have Jesus born in Bethlehem is found in ancient Jewish prophecy. The Old Testament prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea, which is considered the city of King David.

If Jesus was going to be the Jewish Messiah, he had to be born in Bethlehem.

According to Bond, this is most likely the reason why later Gospel writers insist that Jesus was born in the city, despite their contradictions.

This tradition probably arose sometime after Jesus' death, around the time the later Gospels were written.

A second Bethlehem

However, if Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea, the question remains as to where his birthplace might have been.

One theory that has caused a lot of controversy is that there may be another Bethlehem besides Bethlehem of Judea.

According to Aviram Oshri, an archaeologist at the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jesus was actually born in a small village called Bethlehem of Galilee, more than 100 km from Bethlehem of Judea. The scientist has spent more than ten years excavating in Galilee and is convinced that the ancient village near Nazareth is the real birthplace of Jesus. The key to his theory is the idea that it would not have made sense for a pregnant Mary to travel all the way to Bethlehem of Judea from their hometown of Nazareth.

"How would a woman nine months pregnant travel 175 kilometers on a donkey to Bethlehem of Judea? It is much more logical that she would have traveled seven kilometers, which is the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Galilee," explains Mr. Oshry.

During the excavations, he found a huge Byzantine-era church with a hidden cave, parts of the wall around the village, and a two-story building that could have been a guest house or an inn. These details offer remarkably close parallels to the biblical story of the birth of Jesus and could date back to the first century AD.

However, Mr. Oshry's theories have been widely criticized, as the Israel Antiquities Authority has refused to consider the idea or allow further research.

Jesus of Nazareth

There is a much simpler answer that has been on the surface all along. Instead of assuming that the holy family made an arduous journey through a questionable census or that they traveled to an obscure neighboring village, it makes much more sense that Jesus was simply born in his hometown of Nazareth.

We know from the Gospel sources that Mary and Joseph lived in the tiny Galilean village of Nazareth, and that this is likely where Jesus grew up.

Unlike Bethlehem, this village had no prophetic claim to fame, but it is the most consistent feature in the biblical account of Jesus' life.

"There is no concrete evidence, but Jesus is always known as 'Jesus of Nazareth' and none of our earliest sources say anything about Bethlehem. Most likely, it was just Nazareth, where the family lived," says Professor Bond. He also added that, in his opinion, it is better to understand the Gospel birth narratives as a language of poetic imagery designed to emphasize who Jesus really was and his significance, rather than to worry too much about their historical accuracy.

Earlier, OBOZ.UA told what Jesus really looked like. According to experts, the Son of God did not have long hair or a beard and did not wear a robe. Historians believe that Jesus looked like a typical member of Jewish society in the first century AD. But at the same time, he had an athletic figure.

Only verified information is available on the OBOZ.UA Telegram channel and Viber. Do not fall for fakes!