Biblical Archaeology has offered two perspectives on a discussion that is also gaining momentum in the blogosphere. Michael Halcomb and Metacatholic are exchanging posts, and of course I have shared some thoughts on the subject in the past. In this particular exchange, I have to side with those who are against forcing a harmonization of the two stories – although I am not for that reason in favor of cancelling your Christmas pageant. The combined story is no more and no less historical than the incompatible separate versions in Matthew and Luke, and all three are to be appreciated for their historical, cultural, theological and mythical value.
As for the place of Jesus’ birth historically speaking, I’d have to go with Nazareth, since the name “Jesus of Nazareth” points so decisively in that direction, and it is hard to make a case for Bethlehem on the basis of two relatively late and incompatible narratives. Presumably if I were in Britain I’d be part of that group of one in ten deemed to have got the question wrong on a recent survey…
In other news, there is apparently a new LOST trailer available. I haven’t seen it yet (since I’m typing this on a computer with a dial-up connection), but it is bound to be good, and undoubtably of interest!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In