THE BIRTH OF JESUS

I recently shared the following information with my missionary sister-in-law. Given the season (including the recent report regarding Talmage and the birth of Christ), I figured I'd share it here as well. I explained that one of the most asinine anti-Mormon arguments is the Book of Mormon's identification of Jesus' birth in Alma 7:10 ("...at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers..."). According to the critics, the Book of Mormon contradicts the statements of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and is therefore false. Could Bethlehem be considered part of the "land of Jerusalem"? Modern research certainly thinks so:

The so-called "Amarna letters" (fourteenth century B.C.) likewise use the phrase ["land of Jerusalem"]. Indeed, the Amarna letters also allude to "a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name," which W. F. Albright regarded as "an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem." This is interesting evidence, which goes some distance in establishing the plausibility of Alma's prophecy, since it gives us a glimpse of an ancient administrative arrangement in the vicinity of Jerusalem. It shows, from an ancient perspective, that it was possible to conceptualize the regions surrounding a major city, including its dependent villages, as "the land of" that city. And it demonstrates, furthermore, that Bethlehem itself was, at least at one point, anciently regarded as a part of Jerusalem's land, exactly as it is in the Book of Mormon.

A very recently published fragment from the caves at Qumran, known as "Pseudo-Jeremiah" (4Q385)—which is attributed to Lehi's great prophet- contemporary Jeremiah—reflects precisely this situation. It speaks of the Jews as being "taken captive from the land of Jerusalem." Commenting on the text, Professors Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise note this "interesting reference to 'the land of Jerusalem' " and remark that "this greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs."

This newly discovered phrase from the Dead Sea Scrolls significantly transforms the issue. For a century and a half the critics have consistently argued that Alma 7:10 represents a significant blunder which clearly demonstrates that the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith's nineteenth-century forgery. Now, the precise phrase that has been seen as uncharacteristic of the Bible itself has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the ancient documents most closely connected to biblical Hebrew.

The prophecy of Alma 7:10 fits into antiquity very well. If, as Professors Eisenman and Wise observe, an allusion to "the land of Jerusalem" in Pseudo-Jeremiah fragment 4Q385 "greatly enhances [its] sense of historicity," does similar language not "greatly enhance the sense of historicity" of the Book of Mormon? Alma 7:10 is not the sort of thing that Joseph Smith would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason that it bothers enemies of Mormonism. Far from being a serious liability for the Book of Mormon, Alma's prophetic comment about the birth of the Messiah is plausible evidence that the Nephite record is exactly what it claims to be—an authentic ancient historical text with roots in the Near East (Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, Matthew Roper, "On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Jesus," Provo, UT: FARMS Preliminary Report, 1995).

My friend David Bokovoy (Ph.D. candidate, Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, Brandeis) recently provided this insight in an online discussion forum:

As silly as it may seem, some critics of the Book of Mormon have continued to find fault with the book’s reference to Jesus’ birth in Alma 7:10:

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.”

Though several strong apologetic arguments have been made, explaining this issue, I have a few thoughts to add to the discussion. I believe that rather than a case of mistaken identification, the Book of Mormon’s reference to Jerusalem as the Messiah’s birthplace may provide evidence for the book’s connection with ancient tradition.

The Bible’s statement on Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem appears in the Gospel of Luke, which refers to Bethlehem as “the city of David” (2:4). The designation “city of David,” however, never appears linked with Bethlehem in the Old Testament, instead, this expression always functions as a title for “Jerusalem”:

“Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David” (2 Sam. 5:7; see also v. 9)

“So David would not remove the ark of the LORD unto him into the city of David: but David carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite” (2 Sam. 6:10; see also v. 12)

“And his servants carried him [Ahaziah the king of Judah] in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David” (2 Kings 9:28).

Hence, by referring to Bethlehem as “the city of David,” Luke creates a direct link between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. This technique reflects Jewish tradition which interpreted Psalm 87 from the Old Testament as a Messianic prophecy. The Psalm reads:

"A Psalm or Song for the sons of Korah. His foundation is in the holy mountains. The LORD loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah. I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. Selah. As well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there: all my springs are in thee."

This biblical Psalm refers to the birth of a "man" in Jerusalem at the time God made up a census of the world. Some biblical scholars have suggested that this tradition may have influenced Luke’s reference to a census of the “whole world” at the time of Christ’s birth. Indeed, Jewish midrash held that the Messiah would be born at the time when God counts up all the people. The Aramaic revision of Psalm 87 reflects this tradition:

“Words of glory are spoken concerning you, O city of God. For ever. The Egyptians and the Babylonians mention your praise to those who know me; behold, the Philistines and the Tyrians, with the Ethiopians—‘This king was anointed there.’ And of Zion it shall be said, ‘King David and Solomon his son were anointed within her’; and God will establish her on high. The Lord has gone into a book in which are written the number of all the peoples; this king was anointed there” (Psalm 87 Targum as translated in The Aramaic Bible: The Targums, pg.155).

So according to Jewish tradition, the Messiah would be born at Jerusalem, the city of David. Drawing upon this perspective in his study of Luke 2, biblical scholar John Derrett observed,

“The text, [Psalm 87] with midrashim to be found in the Targum, the LXX, Midrash on Psalms, and elsewhere has its major fascinations, but the important idea for us is that when God writes down the peoples, i.e. makes a census of the world, this man, or Man will be born there, i.e. in Jerusalem, the ritual limits of which, as Passover practice showed, included Bethlehem” (John Duncan Martin Derrett, “Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity,” Novum Testamentum, vol. 17, (1975), 86).

So according to ancient thought, Bethlehem was an extension of Jerusalem, the expected birthplace of the Messiah. It would seem, therefore, that rather than a mistake, the Book of Mormon’s reference to Jesus’ birth at Jerusalem reflects a long-standing ancient tradition.

I pointed out that Edwin D. Freed in his The Stories of Jesus' Birth (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) questions the historical validity of Bethlehem being the location of the Nativity. He states that no Jewish tradition placed the Messiah's birth specifically at Bethlehem. If anything, traditions placed him at Jerusalem (which included Bethlehem). Freed points out that Matthew's proof-text is a conflation of Micah 5:(1)2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. The Hebrew of Micah 5:1 reads, "From you he shall come forth to me that is to be a ruler of Israel." The LXX of Micah 5:2 reads, "From you he shall come forth to me to be a ruler of Israel." The Hebrew of 2 Sam. 5:2 reads, "You shall indeed feed [shepherd] my people Israel, and you shall be for a ruler over Israel." The LXX reads, "You shall shepherd [feed, rule] my people Israel, and you shall be for a leader to my people Israel." Matthew 2:6 reads, "for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd [rule] my people Israel." This was a Christian interpretation and tradition, not Jewish.

It is obvious from scholarship that Bethlehem was anciently considered of the "land of Jerusalem." But based on the information provided by David and his sources, if Matthew and Luke were mistaken about the location of Jesus' birth, the Book of Mormon would still be correct due to the fact that it never mentions Bethlehem. In fact, it would be more accurate and more faithful to ancient tradition than the biblical texts. Either way, the Book of Mormon reflects both ancient terminology and ancient tradition concerning the birth of the Messiah.