A second Bethlehem? Some researchers re-think Jesus' birthplace

Scientists and historians are raising fresh questions over the long-held belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Recent archaeological findings and scholarly debates suggest that the historical birthplace of Jesus may not align with traditional narratives, with some experts proposing alternative locations such as Nazareth or another Bethlehem in Galilee.

According to reports by Newsbomb, Dr. Joan Taylor of King's College London and Dr. Shimon Gibson of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte initiated an excavation near the Church of the Nativity in 2016. During their excavation, they discovered various pots and artifacts dating back to the first century CE, which some believe could support the traditional account of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. However, many historians and archaeologists believe that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea, citing scant archaeological evidence to support this claim.

"Our earliest Gospel—Mark—says nothing about his birth. And the Apostle Paul—who knew the brothers of Jesus—says nothing about Bethlehem," Dr. Taylor is cited by the Daily Mail.

This absence of early biblical references has led scholars to question the historical accuracy of the traditional nativity story.

Professor Helen Bond, a leading expert in Christian history at the University of Edinburgh, also expressed skepticism about the traditional narrative. "It is most likely that he simply was born in Nazareth, where the family lived," she said, as reported by Newsbomb. She explained that Jesus is always known as 'Jesus of Nazareth' and that Nazareth is the most stable feature in the biblical narrative of his life.

The inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts further fuel these doubts. Even the Gospels that claim Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea cannot agree on the details. The Gospel of Matthew suggests that the Holy Family lived in Bethlehem and only moved later to escape from King Herod's massacre after Jesus's birth. In contrast, the Gospel of Luke states that Mary and Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be counted in a Roman census. Professor Bond pointed out discrepancies in Luke's account, noting that "there is no evidence that a census was conducted throughout the empire at this point, and while ancient people had to go to a local center to be counted, they didn't have to find an 'ancestral home'—whatever that meant in reality."

Some scholars argue that the emphasis on Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace arose from the desire to link him to an ancient Hebrew prophecy. The prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea, believed to be the city of King David. Professor Bond said that the tradition of Jesus being born in Bethlehem "almost certainly" emerged to enhance his Davidic heritage. She added: "Once they believed that Jesus was the Messiah and 'son of David,' then it made sense to connect his birth with that of David."

Another theory gaining attention is that Jesus may have been born in a different Bethlehem altogether. Aviram Oshri, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, believes that Jesus was actually born in a small village called Bethlehem of Galilee, over 100 kilometers from Bethlehem of Judea. After spending over a decade excavating in the Galilee region, Oshri found evidence suggesting that the ancient village near Nazareth is the true birthplace of Jesus. He argued that it would not be logical for a pregnant Mary to travel 175 kilometers to Bethlehem of Judea from Nazareth. "How could a nine-month pregnant woman travel 175 kilometers on a donkey to Bethlehem of Judea? It makes much more sense that she traveled seven kilometers, the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Galilee," he said, as reported by Newsbomb.

During his excavations, Oshri discovered a large Byzantine-era church with a hidden cave, sections of a wall around the village, and a two-story building that could be an inn or guesthouse. He noted the scarcity of first-century archaeological findings in Bethlehem of Judea, which further supports his theory. However, Oshri's theories have been widely criticized, with the Israeli Antiquities Authority refusing to consider the idea or allow further research. Dr. Clyde Billington, a biblical scholar and executive director of the Biblical Archaeology Institute, dismissed the theory, stating there is "not a single ancient source" that could place the birth of Jesus in this location.

Despite the debates, some scholars emphasize the importance of understanding the Gospel narratives as symbolic rather than strictly historical accounts. "I think it is better to understand the Gospel narratives of the birth as poetic language of images, designed to emphasize who Jesus really was and his significance, rather than to worry about their historical accuracy," Bond said.

The article was written with the assistance of a news analysis system.