For Matthew, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem was a necessity. For Luke, it was a necessary absurdity.
For the past 25 years or so, the "Third Wave" of historical Jesus scholarship has been in full swing. Scholars such as John Meier, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Bart Ehrman have published book after book exploring the history behind the gospels. While theories vary on who the "historical" Jesus really was -- for Crossan, he's best understood as a Jewish Cynic sage, while for Ehrman he's an apocalyptic prophet -- there's general agreement that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. He was after all, Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Bethlehem. Furthermore, Jesus' birth was probably no more eventful than any of the other innumerable, anonymous, back-water peasant births of the time. Which leaves us with an interesting question to ponder this Christmas season -- why was it so important for the gospel writers to claim Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace?
Read Full Article »