Biblical Archaeology<\/a> has offered two perspectives on a discussion that is also gaining momentum in the blogosphere. Michael Halcomb<\/a> and Metacatholic<\/a> are exchanging posts, and of course I have shared some thoughts on the subject in the past<\/a>. In this particular exchange, I have to side with those who are against forcing a harmonization of the two stories \u2013 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.<\/p>\n As for the place of Jesus\u2019 birth historically speaking<\/em>, I\u2019d have to go with Nazareth, since the name \u201cJesus of Nazareth\u201d points so decisively in that direction, and it is hard to make a case for Bethlehem<\/a> on the basis of two relatively late and incompatible narratives. Presumably if I were in Britain I\u2019d be part of that group of one in ten deemed to have got the question wrong on a recent survey<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-3296963480923735233?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"