The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence

by John E. Remsburg

6

Where was Jesus born?

Matthew and Luke: In Bethlehem of Judea ([Matt. ii, 1]; [Luke ii, 1–7]).

Aside from these stories in Matthew and Luke concerning the nativity, which are clearly of later origin than the remaining documents composing the books and which many Christian scholars reject, there is not a word in the Four Gospels to confirm the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Every statement in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Acts, concerning his nativity, is to the effect that he was born in Nazareth of Galilee. He is never called “Jesus of Bethlehem,” but always “Jesus of Nazareth.” According to modern usage “Jesus of Nazareth” might merely signify that Nazareth was the place of his residence and not necessarily the place of his birth. But this usage was unknown to the Jews. Had he been born at Bethlehem, he would, according to the Jewish custom, have been called “Jesus of Bethlehem,” because the place of birth always determined this distinguishing adjunct, and the fact of his having removed to another place would not have changed it.

Peter ([Acts ii, 22]; [iii, 6]); Paul ([Acts xxvi, 9]), Philip ([John i, 45]), Cleopas and his companion ([Luke xxiv, 19]), Pilate ([John xix, 19]), Judas and the band sent to arrest Jesus ([John xviii, 5, 7]), the High Priest’s maid ([Mark xiv, 67]), blind Bartimaeus ([Mark x, 47]), the unclean spirits ([Mark i, 24]; [Luke iv, 34]), the multitudes that attended his meetings ([Matt. xxi, 11]; [Luke xviii, 37]), all declared him to be a native of Nazareth.

To the foregoing may be added the testimony of Jesus himself. When Paul asked him who he was he answered: “I am Jesus of Nazareth” ([Acts xxii, 8]).

Many of the Jews rejected Christ because he was born in Galilee and not in Bethlehem. “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scriptures said, That Christ cometh out of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” ([John vii, 41, 42]).

Concerning this subject the “Bible for Learners” says: “The primitive tradition declared emphatically that Nazareth was the place from which Jesus came. We may still see this distinctly enough in our Gospels. Jesus is constantly called the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth. This was certainly the name by which he was known in his own time; and of course such local names were given to men from the place of their birth, and not from the place in which they lived, which might constantly be changing. Nazareth is called in so many words his own, that is his native city, and he himself declares it so” (vol. iii, pp. 39, 40).

That Jesus the man, if such a being existed, was not born at Bethlehem is affirmed by all critics. That he could not have been born at Nazareth is urged by many. Nazareth, it is asserted, did not exist at this time. Christian scholars admit that there is no proof of its existence at the beginning of the Christian era outside of the New Testament. The Encyclopedia Biblica, a leading Christian authority, says: “We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city called Nazareth in Jesus’ time.”