I was going to do a post this week on the question of whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or not. However, Mark Goodacre has not only beaten me to it, but done a fantastic job with his latest NT Pod “Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?” I encourage you to listen to this as a judicious weighing of the historical arguments
I have a handful of additional observations. I’m not as sold on the Farrer theory as Mark (but who is?) and remain not fully persuaded that Luke is dependent on Matthew. Unlike Mark, therefore, I think it possible that Matthew and Luke are independent witnesses to an earlier Bethlehem tradition. Indeed, if Luke is rewriting Matthew, his rather awkward device of a census to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem is even harder to explain. So for me these two gospels provide an argument that bears a little more weight than Mark puts on it.
In his podcast Mark refers to Crossan’s idea of “prophecy historicised” and points out the possibility that Matthew invents the birthplace of Jesus based on Micah 5:2-4. In discussing the passion narratives elsewhere, of course, Mark himself questions Crossan’s approach and counters with the idea of “history scripturised”. I think messianic expectations at the turn of the century are so inchoate that it’s hard to tell. There’s no evidence, so far as I know, of any clear Messianic expectation focussed on Bethlehem, perhaps because it is the clan (Heb.) or house (Gk) of Bethlehem that is referred to rather than town. In other words, perhaps it was the prior tradition of a birth in Bethlehem that caused Matthew to home in on this prophecy rather than the other way round.
I don’t know whether to place any weight at all upon the Infancy Gospel of James. It is both late (compared to the synoptics) and derivative. The odd thing is that it technically places the birth of Jesus outside Bethlehem, in a cave. That suggests the Bethlehem tradition may not be seen more widely as an essential fulfilment of prophecy. If that is so, it probably increases the chances of historicity.
In his podcast, Mark notes the early tradition that associates Jesus with Davidic descent from Romans 1:3-4. I am one of those who thinks that the speeches of Peter in Acts preserve a far bit of the early Christian preaching tradition (and see the arguments in Dunn’s Beginning from Jerusalem p 90ff). These also suggest a relatively underdeveloped Christology that nonetheless bear witness to the importance of Davidic descent. If one accepts the fascinating house of cards Bauckham constructs in Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, then the same concern with Davidic descent is associated particularly strongly with Jesus’ own family.
None of this, of course, says anything about Jesus’ birth directly. However, when placed alongside John 7:42, we might think that if John, expecting his reader to pick up his irony, is relying on widely held Christian tradition that Jesus is of Davidic descent, he may also be another, possibly independent, witness to a similarly widespread belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
I, therefore, tend to come down on the other side of the fence to Mark. There are some plausible reasons for holding, however tentatively, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments }
Given the way Matthew proof-texts the Jewish scriptures, I am inclined to belief that his treatment of the Messiah’s Bethlehem origin is driven by the text rather than historical memory. I see no reason to assume a historical basis for the Magi, the flight to Egypt or the Slaughter of the Innocents. Why should I grant the benefit of the doubt on the setting of the birth.
I suppose John 7:42 could be taken as irony but the plain reading to me would be that John is dealing with the debates that raged in his day – that Jesus was well known NOT to have been born in Bethlehem and that this was a stumbling block for many. From a literary perspective, it also serves as a plot device to set up the scene with the Jewish mob later on.
Unfortunately, so much of history, especially Biblical, seems to rest one’s “impression” of the overall information. How often do we hear, “It seems unlikely that Matthew yada yada yada”? Not much on which to base our search for truth, is it?
That argument, of course, only works if you agree with those who see Luke as dependent on Matthew.
Clayboy,
While I applaud your efforts in wrestling with this question, I still wonder what kind of historical evidence there is for *any* birthplace of Jesus. Given that both Luke and Matthew had other additional, if not overriding agendas than historical accuracy (and what chance is there that they had historical information about Jesus’ birthplace at all?), all that a 21st century historian can claim would be that Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee or Judaea, and that at the start of his activity as a Rabbi, he had lived for some years in Nazareth. What more can you realistically hope for?
Yours respectfully,
+Wrong
I think any statement has to be cautious and tentative. I think the absence of either a strong adherence to the Bethlehem tradition in the Protevangelium or of any suggestion elsewhere (e.g. bar Kochba) that Bethlehem the place rather than the house of David was considered significant, at least open up consideration of the possibility that this is an example of what Mark Goodacre calls “history scripturized”.
There is no intrinsic reason to doubt the historicity of the astrologers, the escape to Egypt nor the slaughter of the innocents. In fact, hydro-arguments against the derrubáveis easily. And if NTroll Wrong says he has no evidence to believe in any historical narrative of childhood, it also has elements that make it impossible its historical plausibility. What we have are the primary sources that, far from being treated with ingenuity, should be treated carefully and check that they are well-acclimated and are.
One point that account for is that, given good directions to find that historically the resurrection, it is expected non-recurring items and unique in the life of Jesus, a coherent plan. The scientist John Polkinghorne reminds us not to force the reality knowledge in advance for the way it should be discovered – that goes for skeptics and believers in our case – but the natural scientific question to ask is “what makes you think this may be the case?”. Something free from prejudices and begging the question. We can not reach definitive conclusions and unequivocal about the birth, but those who follow the tradition can do it with consistency and good basic course with caution.
There is a very good intrinsic reason: Luke tells a complete narrative not only without mentioning them, but in such a way as to effectively write the possibility out.
I’m afraid, much as I admire your grasp of English – would that I were as fluent in other languages – I don’t entirely follow all your points, because I don;t quite understand what you are saying.
I said that the arguments that point to implausibility historical of the narratives can liabilities falling. The scientist John Polkinghorne reminds us not to force the reality knowledge in advance for the way it should be discovered – that goes for skeptics and believers in our case – but the natural scientific question to ask is “what makes you think this may be the case?”. Something free from prejudices the question by biaseds.
There is no elements that make it the historical plausibility impossible. We can not reach definitive conclusions and unequivocal about the birth of Jesus, but those who follow the tradition can do it with consistency and good basic course with caution.
“but in such a way as to effectively write the possibility out”. No, there a wire brief history can be supplemented, though all the details specific minimum no, as they can hardly even in modern history dissertations on the French Revolution, for example
Comments on this entry are closed.