I've written a lot about the evidence for Jesus' residence in Nazareth, going back to the time of his early childhood, such as here and here. Bart Ehrman has gone as far as to refer to Jesus' upbringing in Nazareth as "certain": "Little can be known about Jesus' early life, but one thing that can be said for certain is that he was raised in Nazareth, the home village of Joseph and Mary." (The New Testament [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012], 269) What I want to do here is bring up another line of evidence for both the Nazareth residence and its earliness.
I've argued elsewhere that Micah 5:2 likely refers to the figure there as being born in Bethlehem. But somebody could take it to mean that the figure predicted in the passage is supposed to come from Bethlehem in the sense of being conceived there. The placement of Jesus in Nazareth at the time of his conception opens the door to doubting his fulfillment of Micah 5 under that reading of the passage. Even for those who think Micah 5 only requires a birth in Bethlehem or some other association with Bethlehem later in life, not conception there, the ability for others to disagree and raise the objection under consideration is significant. The easiest way for the early Christians to have handled this issue and others, if they weren't constrained much by what actually happened in history, would have been to place both the conception and the birth in Bethlehem. You don't have to get Jesus to Bethlehem if you place him there to begin with.
There are many other reasons for accepting the historicity of Jesus' residence in Nazareth and the timing of the residence early in his life, such as the evidence discussed in my posts linked above. The line of evidence I'm focused on in this post is just one among others. There's a lot of weight to the cumulative effect of all of these considerations.
Who, historically, has questioned the need for Jesus to have been conceived in Bethlehem?
ReplyDeleteAre you asking who's said that the figure would need to be conceived in Bethlehem? If so, I don't know of any, but it's a topic I don't know much about. As I mentioned, my view is that Micah is referring to a birthplace, and I've argued for that conclusion in an article linked above. I've read a lot of modern sources on Micah and some sources commenting on the passage before the modern era, but I haven't done much work on the history of interpretation of the passage. I'd be interested in knowing more, though, if you or anybody else has the information or knows of a book or some other source who has it.
DeleteVerses 1-5a of Micah 5 I take as Messianic. Verse 1 describes the Humiliation, while vs. 3 seems to look at this present age. 4-5a after Christ's return. That's my take on the passage. Much revelation (prophecy) is ambiguous and cryptic for a variety reasons. Perhaps the Bethlehem fulfillment shows God's control and His ability to deliver.
DeleteMary and Joseph were not long-time Galileans in my thinking. The Galilee was recolonized by Judeans several times. Mary seems to have been the longer resident while the teknon Joseph might have gone up north for work in the Sepphoris region when he met Mary.