Where Was Jesus Born? (And When?)Introduction Talkback Add Your Comment
Among scholars this view is no secret. But for some reason, the story is not often recounted outside the ivy-covered walls. Which is why we asked two experts to go public and explain both sides of the issue. We invited Steve Mason of Toronto’s York University to lay out the little-known but more widely accepted (there’s an oxymoron for you!) view that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Mason offers a fascinating lesson of the way scholars search for history in the biblical text in “O Little Town of ... Nazareth?”). Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem, takes a different tack in “Bethlehem ... Of Course,” delving into the archaeological, extrabiblical and gospel evidence in support of the long-cherished Bethlehem tradition. In the end, we leave you to fill in the blank: “O little town of ________.” “Talkback” at the top of this page and let us know where you believe Jesus was born—or whether you are now decidedly undecided—and why.
Jesus' birthplaceJesus was born in the mind of his beholder: Mark the evangelist. The case for a historical Jesus is chattered by the Dead Sea Scroll Messiahs. They personify two clans within the divided community. The 'Apocalyptic fragment' gives us, as would any local or national assembly, a pie-chart of the forces present. A winning Priestly Messiah clan and a lesser Davidic clan retaining only a few residual benches. The Gospels were written according to the same structure: a winning Jesus Messiah clan opposed to a losing John the Baptist Messiah clan. Don't forget that if on one side of the coin John the Baptist has 'something to do with Qumran', on the other side he is an allegory of an ascetic prophet dressed in camel skins identifying Elijah and implicitly giving John a messianic coverage. To the Gospel writer, John the Baptist is obviously not the one they are waiting for and is dismissed from the scene as soon as the curtain goes up. The evolution of the community, changing from Essene to Christian can be followed by the relationship between the two emblematic Messias, such as rejection and quarrels in Mark followed ten years later by Mathew accepting that the new movement was issued from the Essene antecedents. Jesus represents a 'political etiquette'. The party he represents was not 'born' in Bethlehem the Davidic town nor in Nazareth that never existed as a town in those days. • • • • • • • birth place of JesusThe real birth place of Jesus seems to be Gamla,also written Gamala, in the Golan Heights. Indeed, Gamla is only town, during Jesus time, that coincides with the description given in the Gospel of Luke.Is also seems that the Nazareth of the time of Jesus is to be found nowhere.I have been to visit the ruins of Gamla : impressive • • • • • • • birthplace of JesusI am amazed that this discussion is being held on BAR's site: on a fundamentalist Christian website, maybe, but (unless I 'member incorrectly) such items as "did the village of Nazareth even exist at the time of Jesus' birth ?" and " was 'Jesus of Nazareth' mistranslated from 'Jesus the Nazorean'?" have graced the pages of BAR on many occassions. The poster who pointed out that there is NO independent verification of Jesus having even lived is correct: basically, it is all based on the information given in one source - the Bible. Unfortunately for the 'believer', you can't prove something written in one book ONLY by that same book. In many a discussion with believers over the veracity of the Bible, I would pull a copy of 'The Lord Of The Rings' on them; we were then each armed with the same proofs - his that Jesus, Cephas, and Mary had existed and mine that Smeagol, Pippin, and Orcs had since we each had an uncorroborated book stating such. One of the most basic starting points in a debate is : If your view must be held based simply on "belief" , then you have no grounds for debate. • • • • • • • let faith take overIn my heart and mind - Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Whether Bethlehem in those days covered a different area or meant somewhere else - it is not of great importance. The knowledge of the true and exact location of Jesus' birth shouldn't be that important. It does not and will not change his teachings and shouldn't shake our faiths. For those who do not believe, but still choose to post comments here - peace be with you. • • • • • • • Birthplace of JesusDick Carey, what a refreshingly honest thing to say. Faith is indeed paramount. We do tend to get "blind-itis" from traditions and it's sometimes hard to shake it. As a prof of mine used to say when we students wanted to put a popular slant on a given scripture; "Let the text speak for itself". • • • • • • • Birth place of JesusI think we, as Christians have somewhat of a hangup equating tradition with fact. There are a lot of things that are correctible in the Bible. Faith is paramount...it is the basis, not where the dirt or rocks are piled. • • • • • • • BethlehemDr Jerome Murphy O'Connor has the most convincing argument, especially when taken in light of Frederick A. Larson's scholarship of the Bethlehem Star and the title of Pater Patriae bestowed on Augustus in February, 2 BC mandating the loyalty oath mentioned by Josephus. • • • • • • • Bethlehem - sillyMason's article is part of a growing trend to publish sensational contrarian theories ala Simcha Jacobovici - lets face it - tabloid jouranlism sells more magazines, books,videos etc. BTW, Mason's stomping grounds at York University is well known for being somewhat of a second tier remedial school, hardly the home of world class thought leadership. • • • • • • • o little town of NazarethThe idea of "Jesus" is a good one; it's just that he was not real in a historical sense. He is an "idea" for us to contemplate. Please read "The Laughing Jesus" by Freke and Gandy. A real eye-opener.....no, make that brain-opener. • • • • • • • for the talk back on where jesus was bornit is on the "o little town of Nazareth" that is the answer to your question. • • • • • • • birthplace of jesustwo excellent well written accounts were presented. i cannot decide with certainty. however, since bethelem is specifically mentioned in the gosples, and nazareth only inferentially, i will stick with tradition and vote for bethlehem. this is an expedient choice only and has no theological significance for me. jesus could not be from the house of david as presented, anyway, because josef is not his father, and the suggested genealogical connection to david requires the bloodline of josef. in other words, being born in bethlehem is fortuitous only. it could have been any town, although "o little town of schechem" would make an awful christmas carol! • • • • • • • WHERE WAS JESUS BORN?I know there has been some debete about where and when Jesus was born; the simple fact is unless someone finds a stone that Joseph or Mary craved that says "My Son Jesus was Born Here" no one prove 100% where and where it happened. Somethings will always be more of a matter of faith than hard fact. • • • • • • • Not BethlehemI think the prophecy in Micah often used to justify the Bethlehem site is a metaphor. The constant theme which runs through the OT is the elder son serving the younger. David was the youngest and least of his brethern. Jesse the patriarch is referred to as the Bethlemite. And any of David and his brothers could also be referred to in a similar manner. So the one who was to be born to rule was the offshoot of a minor branch of the Davidic line (least among the princes of Judah). Therefore,the prophecy would be better understood to refer to the rulership passing not to the chief descendants of David from the preserved geneologies, but to a minor obscure side branch. I think when Herod inquired of the birthplace of the King of the Jews that he was deflected to look away from Jerusalem where most likely the chief descendants (and minor families)had family connections. Jesus had a strong connection with Jerusalem and it may be because he lived there for sometime, perhaps in the lost years. His father was a carpenter (actually he was a construction worker-tekton) who most likely worked on the largest construction site around (the Temple). No where is Bethlehem mentioned as a site of interest past the nativity stories. I think it's more interesting that Jesus is descended from Zerubbabel in both the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. • • • • • • • Jesus' BirthplaceI believe that Jesus was far more likely to have been in Nazareth, and the place changed in legend to fit in with alleged prophesies.There is no logic in Joseph going to Bethlehem to be counted in a census rather than be counted where he is actually living. Accounts of his birth in the New Testament and in other early Christian writings are scarcely eyewitness, and vary. • • • • • • • re: jesus birthSo politically naive! The church's leaders through the centuries haven't been interested in corporate power and suppression? PLEASE read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. Use your cerebral cortex (provided to you as a courtesy by your god, by the way). • • • • • • • jesus birthbethlehem of course like bible tells us that is the end of that • • • • • • • oh little town of ___________If Bethlehem was not even founded until many decades after the supposed date of birth, then how could Bethlehem by Jesus' hometown? Now, the WAS a Bethlehem in the time of Herod in the North of the country....but being born in North Bethlehem wouldn't have a messiah coming out of the House of David so the authors just lied....uh, made it up. What was that 9th Commandment again? Was it only lying about your neighbor...is lying in general OK though if you are an early church official? • • • • • • • Where Jesus was bornThe Bible is the inspired word of God . We can believe what the NT birth narratives tells us. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Why mess withn veiws that contradict the Bible. • • • • • • • Jesus was born in BethlehemI believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill the prophecies. It is hard to believe that Mary, mother of the infant church, would not have told the apostles or anyone who would listen the story of the miracles that took place there. All mothers I know love to relate where they gave birth to their children. It seems natural to me that the women of that time would have wanted to know where Jesus was born. Don't we do as much with our presidents and other leaders? We turn their birthplaces into shrines, museums, etc. We make road signs, and put info. in magazines and public places of interest. The star was miraculous. How many babies have magi, or important people travel so far to visit them and bring them the three gifts? Also, how many children have to die because the present ruler is fearful of a baby taking his throne? These events in a world without TV seem far beyond the ordinary and would have been told and remembered for generations! Thus as Micah says,"But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah...from you shall come forth for me one who is to be the ruler in Israel..." • • • • • • • WalkerIn regards to your query concerning the when and where of Jesus' birth, I have postulated my own beliefs. I agree with Bethlehem because of the census to be taken. • • • • • • • birth place of JesusIf the jesus spoken of by the Professor in toronto was born in Nazareth, the He couldn't be the Messiah, Prince of Peace, or Saviour. The bible prophecy indicates that the Saviour, Messiah, etc. will be born in Bethlehem. How does BAS have so much success finding people like Prof. Mason? • • • • • • • Where was Jesus bornO little town in Israel....... • • • • • • • Birth of Jesus - locationAll ancient documentation of credible sources either concur with or fail to dispute that Jesus / Yeshua was born in that same Bethlehem of Ephratah in Judea listed in the prophecy of Micah, and the eyewitness and documented testimonials found in the 50 A.D. Gospel of Luke, and the 55 A.D. gospel of Matthew. Matthew especially, written and published amongst living hostile witnesses at Jerusalem and present scrolls and availability to check against his claims that Jesus was Messhiach. The Gospels, written and testified to by the total silence of any refutation as to their credibility or writing after the fact, as did Josephus complain that the witnesses died off and records became unavailable...there is not ONE like complaint against the NT until some atheistic quacks took over higher criticism in Germany in the 1800s. Mark, whose Gospel was written post geneaology, found as to be this testimony through Mark in Alexandria passing the history down to Clement of Alexandria 130 years later, demonstrates through manuscript fragments extant, that Quelle or "Q" is a horrible hoax on a society looking for any excuse it can, to not believe into Jesus. I challenge BAR / BAS to examine a paper I have written, which shows that the majority of the NT was written in 47 -57/58 A.D., and that Paul and Peter could not have been executed any later than June 29 of 58 A.D., and most likely in June 29 of 57 A.D. The most credible of ancient sources, when examined along the lines of being a legal prospectus of sound historical tradition passed down, in place of myth making, will thoroughly discredit the pseudo-Scholars of today who scoff at the past, in order that they may exercise an Orwellian rewrite of actual history into their own myths, to make their name great in the Earth and the new P.T. Barnums of the academic world. • • • • • • • where was Jesus born?Where my butt! How about just getting down to the when? 4, 5, or 6 BCE? How about if Jesus was closer to fifty- as one Gospel recounts? • • • • • • • Jesus BirthplaceI think Jesus was born in Jerusalem. The shepherds were directed to The City of David and that isn't Bethlehem because it never a city and David never spent any time there after his youth. The City of David is the old part of Jerusalem. And I think there is a lot of confusion about Jesus alleged connections with the village of Nazareth. I think all that is a concocted story to explain a misunderstanding of the Hebrew/Aramaic words. I think Jesus' title was in the Aramaic, Jesus the Prophet, not Jesus the Nazarean. I'm not a scholar so shoot me down. • • • • • • • Where was Jesus bornWhile getting biblical scholars to agree is probably as difficult as getting economists to reach a conclusion, it should not be that difficult to define the rules of a debate/disagreement. In the hard sciences, a postulate is accepted until either of two things occur. 1) it is proven wrong, or 2) a better postulate comes along. This should be acceptable to any scholar endowed with a reasonable amount of ethical integrity. My assesment is that Mr Mason adheres to this construction of a postulate, while Mr Murphy-O’Connor seems to argue that if others believe the traditional myth, and it cannot be disproved, then it must be true. I prefer a bit more logic support postulates that I accept. • • • • • • • The First Born of the Kindom of God through a Resurrection to life.Luke had a perfect understanding of all things (1:3) Luke (2:11,14,15 say in the city of David, Bethlehem) His eye witness source? Mary Luke 2:19,51 (she kept these things in her heart) • • • • • • • Birth place of JesusIt can only be Bethlehem. If that is what the Bible says, then that is the truth. Case closed! • • • • • • • O Little Town of BethlehemBoth were intersting articles. First of all, not all agree with the writers that Mark was first. Eusebius notes that Matthew's gospel was first and written originally in Hebrew/Aramaic and later reworked into its present Greek form. Second, given the virginity and pregnancy of Mary, it's not surprising that little is made of Bethlehem by the earliest Christians. However, if Luke did do oral history interviews as he claims to have done, then Mary herself may have been the sources of his information. If O'Connor is correct that the proto-gospel he mentions comes from Egypt, might some Egyptians have heard of a Bethlemite fleeing Herod? One account has Jesus in a manger at birth, the other in a house TWO YEARS later. It is we who put the two accounts together under the Christmas tree or in the movie, "The Nativity Story," or Mason's article. Mark's gospel dealing with Jesus as power against the demonic does well to go without a powerless baby.Mangers have no place in such a narrative. I was born in a hospital in Missouri, but have lived most of my life in California. A friend once remarked that he and I were native Californians. I consider the town I lived in from tenth grade on to be my home town. Even had we remained in Missouri, I would not consider myself from Richmond Heights, because we didn't live there, but in a nearby St. Louis suburb. So, too, was Jesus, from Bethlehem, a Nazarene. Yours, Ted Proffitt.Ph.D. • • • • • • • Birth of JesusSo does that make Matthew and Luke and the New Testament wrong? It does state that He was born in Bethlehem. • • • • • • • Place of Jesus' BirthIt seems as though Steve Mason enjoys arguing from silence and making assumptions upon the text based upon what is not there in the writings of Paul, Mark, and John. When he begins to discuss what is written about Jesus being born in Bethlehem, he again makes assumptions that Jesus' birth account in Bethlehem was manipulated by the original authors to fit prophecy. For the biblically and critically uneducated reader, this argument would seem believable. However, since he is so keen on searching out the evidence available, one would think that the writings about the birthplace of Jesus would be sufficent evidence for him in light of the lack of other evidence. But, since his soapbox demands an argument, it seems more fitting for Mr. Mason to draw assumptions from silence rather than delving into evidence he's been given. Finding out the truth is one thing, beginning with a bias toward accomplishing a personal agenda is another. • • • • • • • Jesus' birthplaceCome on people, don't you recognize intellectual gibberish when you read it? If Jesus was born in some place other than where the scriptures state, then the scriptures are in error, the whole Bible is in error and, therefore is not to be trusted. Make a choice! Some of you have made the wrong choice--one more piece of evidence as to the deceptions of the last days. • • • • • • • Nazareth seems the most likely candidateIn "Bethlehem... Of Course" by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, the centre point of Prof Murphy-O’Connor's argument is a statement by Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 78.6.; c160?): "he moved into a certain cave near the village, and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed him in a manger”. Prof Murphy-O’Connor argues that "Justin’s information must derive from a specific Bethlehem tradition, which as a native of Palestine (he was born about 40 miles to the north, in Flavia Neapolis, modern Nablus), Justin was in a position to hear". He thus creates the impression that Justine Martyr was in Palestine when he received the tradition and that he received it from Palestinian Christians who were sufficiently rooted in the area to have maintained it in unbroken succession for the days of James the Just (the brother of Jesus). This is not so: · Justine was a pagan from Flavia Neapolis, a pagan settlement founded by Vespasian in 72 and we have no reason to think that he ever had direct contact with Christians while living in Palestine (or Syria for that matter) in his youth. He traveled abroad to receive his education in philosophy and converted to Christianity in about 130 at Ephesus at about the age of 30 years. We have no reason to think that he ever returned to Palestine again before his martyrdom in 165. · The (Jewish) Christians of Judea fled the territory to Damascus before the siege of Jerusalem and never returned after the destruction of Jerusalem. We have no historical evidence of what traditions about the birth of Jesus they may have possessed. Whatever traditions of theirs Justine would receive would have to have been from a stay in Damascus, but there is no evidence that he did in fact ever stay in (or even pass through) Damascus. · Whatever traditions may have developed in Bethlehem concerning the place of Jesus' birth were not derived from an unbroken chain of tradition stretching back to the time of James the Just, for the origin of the Christians of Bethlehem derived from the conversions after 70 from people who had no previous knowledge of (much less historic traditions about) Jesus. Where did Justine receive the information about "a certain cave"? We do not know. The tradition is certainly secondary embellishments of the narratives of Luke and Matthew and of the same Mithraic character as the shepherds of Luke and the much later dating of the birth event to the 25 December. Justine was indeed concerned about syncretism between Christianity and Mithraism, but that would not have prevented him from accepting traditions that he believed were historical, even if they had a Mithraic character. The Protoevangelium of James (140-170) merely confirms that such secondary accretions to the basic infancy narratives were already in wide circulation amongst gentile Christians at the time of Justine's Dialogue with Trypho (as well as a tendency to harmonize conflicting Gospel traditions). If the cave tradition is accepted as having a historical base then it is the only element of the material in this work that is not derived from the Old Testament or the canonical Gospels that is historical, for the rest of the material is clearly non-historical embellishment. He writes "This example of Matthew’s literary technique establishes the way each of the “fulfillment” prophecies in the first two chapters in his gospel must be approached. Matthew’s source(s) triggered recollections of Old Testament prophecies, which Matthew then incorporated when he rewrote the story. One cannot seriously imagine an evangelist thumbing his way through his sacred scriptures in search of quotations on which to embroider a story. Simple common sense tells us it was much more a question of “Hey! That reminds me of something in Isaiah!”. However, Matthew (and Luke as well, for that matter) clearly accepts non-historical, mythical material, that is in fact derived form "searching the scriptures" to find out more about Jesus; the tradition of Mary's virginity being the classic example of this. Luke and Matthew are indeed independent witness to early Christian infancy traditions of the Bethlehem and the virgin birth, however, we have no reason to suppose that either of these elements are historic. Once in circulation and accepted these traditions about "a certain cave" become geographically rooted by the Christians of Bethlehem by attaching them to the best available candidate in Bethlehem "this particular cave". Sadly, the centre of Prof Murphy-O’Connor's argument does not hold. We do not know where Jesus was born, but, if we must hazard a guess, Nazareth seems by far the most likely candidate. • • • • • • • Birth of JesusTo Paulette and others about the census--did you read both articles-both pro and con said the census did not happen at this time . • • • • • • • Where Was Jesus Born (and When)Steve Mason and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor present arguments pro and con Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace with great expertise. For this they should be thanked. I would like to make a brief comment on Matthew's use of prophecy. Though Matthew does have Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two beasts to fulfill a misunderstood prophetic parallelism, his usual procedure is to explain the event with the prophecy. If he can't find a prophecy to explain the event, he makes one up (Matt 2:23). Note Matthew's used of Isaiah ch 7. By no stretch of the imagination is Isaiah 7 a Messianic prophecy. If the predicted Emmanuel was to be the Messiah, Ahaz would have been even more panicked, not comforted. I think Matthew had a virgin birth he needed to explain with prophecy. He may have searched the proto-Masoretic text, but Isaiah 7:14 in MT talks about a girl already pregnant. So he searches the Septuagint and, voila, Isaiah 7:14 (LXX) refers to a parthenos (virgin) who shall conceive etc. Matthew finds his prophecy where he can and lifts is (almost) verbatim from LXX. Luke, of course, cares not for prophecy, only that the principals are filled with the Holy Spirit. God bless Steve and Jerome, BAR and all of us. • • • • • • • Birthplace of JesusI believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem because the Bible tells me so. • • • • • • • Where was Jesus BornMurphy-O'Connor is clearly very intelligent, for he agrees with me completely! Further, while Jesus lived in Nazareth he would have been known as "the builder" or "the carpenter". In Capernaum he was known to be from Nazareth, whence he came to Capernaum. The Roman and Jewish authorities would have picked up this title: the Romans because that is how this trouble-maker (as they clearly saw him) was known; and the temple authorities because they wouldn't want to identify or pulicize any possible connection to the awaited Messiah. Bethlehem is the better candidate, but the debate will go on. TM • • • • • • • O Little Town OfHow about a place in Egypt where Christ started his life? Such a waste of children in Bethleham to exterminate a King who left for Egypt days before they were killed. • • • • • • • Where was JESUS born?Doesn't the Bible say "Bethlehem of Judea?" I am just glad that HE was born. Thank GOD. • • • • • • • Where was Jesus born?If both Bible scholars and laity alike believe in Inspiration of the Almighty God's Spirit upon the Scriptures, then Micah 5:2 prophesies that it would be Beth-le-hem Eph-ra-tah in which Matthew 2:5-6 confirms with and in its fulfillment of. Unless we care to add and take away from the scripture; and therefore care not to believe that some scriptures are no longer Canonical and Inspired from God; I think I'll stay with G-d's totally inspired word from Genesis through Revelation; and I pray you and your readers do as well. • • • • • • • Where was Jesus born?My younger son was born in Venezuela. Lived there a year, then we returned to Houston, where he was reared. So he is from Houston, but born in Maracaibo, just as Jesus was born in Bethlehem, because Joseph had to return to his city, but Jesus was reared (not raised) in Nazareth. Poor scholarship. • • • • • • • O Little Town Of NazarethI'd have to go with Nazareth, since being called 'Jesus of Nazareth' points very strongly in that direction, and there is no way to fit together the details from the two stories in the New Testament that locate Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com • • • • • • • Where Christ was bornThe Gospel of Luke is part of the Word of God, and it clearly says that, though Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, Christ was born in Bethlehem - also giving a plausible reason for it - a Census that can be proven to have taken place. Meanwhile, Matthew's Gospel makes it clear that the Wise Men worshipped Christ as a toddler, not a newborn, and that Mary was living in a house in Bethlehem when the Wise Men showed up. The traditional Nativity story ties these two disparate events together, and this has proven to be very misleading. Using the Sacred Astronomy known to the Wise Men, I've written a free 24-page report available in the Free Articles section at www.pillar-of-enoch.com, which postulates that Christ's Birthday may have been in September around the time of Sukkot, and not in December at all. However, if Christ were born in September, He would have been conceived in the December prior, possibly during Chanukah. I also discuss the significance of the Star of Bethlehem, and the other heavenly signs that may have been visible at Christ's birth, which I strongly believe was around 3 BC. Numerous reasons for assuming this year are given in my thought-provoking essay. Happy Holidays! • • • • • • • Where was Jesus BornWhile reseaching one day, I found a Bethlehem just outside of Nazareth... so, perhaps both are correct. • • • • • • • response to Where was Jesus Born?Historians must have thick skin, especially when they want to revision bible history. This sounds like an article written by one of the Jesus Seminar fellows; those guys looking for some domino effect to topple the belief in the special nature of the bible. It isn't just a history book. Jesus was born in Bethleham. Well talk it over at the Paradise Cafe. • • • • • • • birth of Jeususwhat about the census where Joseph & Mary were expected to travel to Bethlehem? • • • • • • • |
Where Was Jesus Born? (And When?)IntroductionO Little Town of…Nazareth?Bethlehem…Of CourseInside Online ExclusivesThe Dead Sea Scrolls and Why They MatterOldest Church Found?A First-Hand Report from the 2008 International Society of Biblical Literature MeetingThe Book of RuthWho's the Boss: What Saul and David have to do with McCain and ObamaDoing Egypt Right—With a BAS TourIl Fantastico: The Strange Pilgrimage of Pietro Della ValleTemple Mount DestructionTwenty-Four Hours That Changed the World Forever: An Easter DiscussionWhere Was Jesus Born? (And When?)Herods Tomb FoundIs the Ivory Pomegranate a Forgery or Authentic?Jerusaelem Forgery Conference Report |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
Psst. There’s something you should know about Christmas. The Christmas carols, we’re afraid, might have it wrong: Jesus, many New Testament scholars believe, was not born in Bethlehem but Nazareth.