"Scholars Challenge Details of Jesus' Birth"

by Stephen Bastin

contact writer

“I can’t think of any New Testament scholar who takes (the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth) to be historically reliable,” said Paula Fredriksen, a Boston University professor who specializes in early Christianity.  “Most believe he was born in Nazareth.”

The above headline and paragraph were taken from a recent issue of a local newspaper, the Tribune-Review.  They represent the thinking of a lot of “theologians” today.

I can think of a lot of New Testament scholars who take the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth to be historically reliable.  The comment above tells us more about its author than it does about what scholars think.

If you close yourself in and read only the writings of those with whom you generally agree, you may come up with such ridiculous statements as the one above.  If you read widely, you will be exposed to the ideas of others.

Two reasons are given for believing that Jesus was born in Nazareth.  One, he is called “Jesus of Nazareth.”  Two, the gospels were written “at least half a century after Jesus’ death” and reflected a need for Christians to associate Jesus’ birth with the prophecies in the Old Testament.

The writer argues that Paul was still called “Paul of Tarsus” long after he had left the community in which he grew up.  Therefore, Jesus must have been born in Nazareth!  For starters, the gospels present Nazareth as the community in which Jesus grew up.  Nazareth is presented as the home of Jesus’ parents before he was born and except for a brief interlude, first in Bethlehem and then in Egypt, Nazareth is the community in which he grew up.  Therefore he is called “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Second, there is solid evidence that the gospel of Mark was written within 30 years of Jesus’ death.  A fragment from Mark’s gospel has been dated in the early to mid 60’s.  The gospel itself would have to have been written several years before the fragment which is a copy of the original.

The news article also argues that Jesus’ birth is placed in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy.  Another question:  Why did the Christian community feel it necessary to connect Jesus with Old Testament prophecy?  The Muslims feel no need to connect Mohammed with Old Testament or New Testament prophecy.  The Buddhists feel no need to connect Buddha with prophecy.  Why did the Christians feel such a need?  Let me suggest that they felt no need!  The matter is simply that Jesus fit Old Testament prophecy.  Did Christians also invent his manner of teaching, John the Baptist, the manner of his death and his resurrection as well.  All of these and much more are the subjects of Old Testament prophecies which Jesus fulfilled!

Later in the same Tribune-Review article another writer argues that Jesus was born in a house, not a stable.  “A typical house of the time would have consisted of two stories. . . The Greek word translated as ‘inn’ in Luke’s gospel . . Most accurately refers to a private house rather than a public inn.”  Kittel’s “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (a standard work for the meaning of Greek words in the New Testament) lists no such meaning as even possible.  The word sometimes refers to a guest chamber in a private house as in Mark 14:14, but not to the house itself.  In reviewing twelve different Bibles on my computer every one of them translate “inn” not house.  These translations represent the work of well over 100 New Testament scholars.  Are they all wrong?

At Christmas time we are treated to a mishmash of opinion and speculation from “scholars” who do not believe in the virgin birth.  At Easter we are treated to a similar mishmash of opinion and speculation from “scholars” who do not believe in the resurrection.

In all of this there is an attempt to reduce Jesus to just another human.  Such “scholars” will concede that he was a great person and that he produced a following among the “simple” people of the first century.  But certainly he could not have been the divine Son of God, the Savior of the World!  No, he cannot be allowed such a title.

The facts are all against the “scholars.”  They argue in vain against Jesus.  The evidence demands a verdict in favor of Jesus.  The continuing finds of archaeology and true scholarship build a stronger case with each passing decade.

I suspect the real problem lies somewhere other than in the evidence.  People are sinners.  God is just and will punish people for their sins consistent with the penalty that He announced in the Garden of Eden.

The only hope for avoiding the punishment is to be found in God’s plan of salvation.  Central to that plan is the sacrifice of Jesus at Golgotha.  Only Jesus can atone for our sins.  Only Jesus can act as our Mediator to make peace between us and our God.

Accepting Jesus means not only believing what happened in His life, but accepting what He said as a way to live our lives.

That life is not acceptable to “modern scholarship.”  Well, shame on the scholars.  Common folks can understand the Bible.  It is not interpretation that tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.  It is the plain statement of scripture!