In this article, the author challenges the consensus surrounding Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. This consensus claims the Bethlehem birth was a fabrication posited as messianic fulfilment of Micah 5.2. First, the author summarises the majority position on the issue. Second, the author problematises the notion that there was an expectation regarding Bethlehem as messianic birthplace. Third, the author claims the available evidence might equally suggest Jesus was born in Bethlehem, with Micah 5.2 reinterpreted in light of this. As such, the author calls for renewed discussion about Jesus’ birthplace, and the nature of scholarly argumentation surrounding the issue.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 847 | 227 | 100 |
Full Text Views | 57 | 19 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 134 | 47 | 7 |
In this article, the author challenges the consensus surrounding Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. This consensus claims the Bethlehem birth was a fabrication posited as messianic fulfilment of Micah 5.2. First, the author summarises the majority position on the issue. Second, the author problematises the notion that there was an expectation regarding Bethlehem as messianic birthplace. Third, the author claims the available evidence might equally suggest Jesus was born in Bethlehem, with Micah 5.2 reinterpreted in light of this. As such, the author calls for renewed discussion about Jesus’ birthplace, and the nature of scholarly argumentation surrounding the issue.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 847 | 227 | 100 |
Full Text Views | 57 | 19 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 134 | 47 | 7 |