Is the Church of the Holy Nativity Authentic?
I realize that questioning the authenticity of one of the holiest sites in Christianity is not necessarily a popular thing to do but I feel that it is necessary! In the last article I questioned several features of the Church of the Holy Nativity, which is generally accepted as the place where Christ was born. To me there are so many obvious questions we should be asking that virtually no one is asking. Last week I posed the question who built the church and why? The “who” is an easy question to answer but the “why” is very subjective.
I am always very happy when anyone comments on my writings. It challenges me to dig deeper and learn. Peter Nagy commented on the previous article, “Wasn’t it three centuries later that Constantine’s mommy Helena established the site as the official birthplace?” Peter you are exactly correct! Queen Helena identified the site as the birthplace of Christ in 326/7 C.E. Why did she choose this site? What was there that made her feel like this was the place? There was not an ancient threshing floor. There was not the City of Bethlehem up the hill very near by. There are no remains of the Tower of the Flock. Did Queen Helena have any evidence that this is the correct site? Is there really a cave under the floor of site? Have there been any official excavations done at the Church of the Holy Nativity showing evidence that this is the correct site?
Besides the evidence we have already considered, there are several other markers from history and the Bible that we must examine. We know that there was an inn close by. According to Luke, Mary gave birth in the stable because the inn was too full. There is an ancient shepherd’s inn near the Church of the Holy Nativity, which is claimed to be the inn that was too full. The problem with that inn fitting the story is that it is 1.42 miles from the Church. The inn had to be very close to the stable to fit the story. The bigger problem with this inn being correct is that this was a shepherd’s inn. The inn that was too full in Luke was an official guest chamber. This is a different Greek word. There would have been a building used for worship at Bethlehem which would have had a guest chamber, not just a shepherd’s inn.
Another problem with the Church of the Holy Nativity being the correct site is its proximity to Rachel’s’ Tomb. The language of the original Hebrew in Genesis 35indicates that Rachel was buried just outside the city of Bethlehem Ephrata. After Jacob buried her, he set up camp with all of his family, servants, flocks, and herds just on the other side of The Tower of the Flock (Tower of Edar). The Tower of the Flock had to be very close to Rachel’s Tomb. The Church of the Holy Nativity is almost 2 miles from Rachel’s Tomb. Most ancient cities were not that large. In the days that Jesus was born that would have been two separate cities. Why did Jacob set up camp just beyond The Tower of the Flock? Because David’s well would have been there. He needed water for his animals.
Peter Nagy implied that Queen Helena named the site over 300 years after Christ’s birth. This is true. It is often assumed that she was much closer in time to the event so she must be correct. 300 years is a long time and could allow for errors in identification. However, Bethlehem Ephrata was a well-known site. It was the site where the love story of Ruth and Boaz took place, the burial place of Rachel, the place where David was born and raised, and the birthplace of Jesus. It was a protected Holy site in ancient times. Believers during the First and Second Temple periods worshipped there as well as the Early Church during the first three centuries.
The writings of Justin Martyr (100- 165 C.E.) and Origen (185-254 C.E.) are used to verify the birthplace of Christ. Their writings give brief overviews of it. They both say He was born in a cave. This would have been a cave that was used as a stable. According to the Mishnah the Tower of the Flock is the place where the sacred sacrifices for the Temple were born and raised. Jesus was born in a cave by the Tower of the Flock, which was used as a stable to birth and raise the sacred sacrificial lambs for Temple sacrifice.
Origen emphasizes that Jesus was born in the same place where David was born.[1] He normally refers to it as Bethlehem of Judah (like Matthew 2 and Luke 2do). Why do these accounts emphasize the territory? Most scholars believe he is distinguishing it from another Bethlehem in northern Israel. If that were the case, the context would eliminate the need to distinguish it from another city so far away no one could confuse the two. I Samuel 10 indicates that the border between Benjamin and Judah is in that very area. It is very likely that the city of Bethlehem was in the territory of Benjamin and the village of Bethlehem (Bethlehem Ephrata) was in the territory of Judah. Anyone in that day would know exactly which Bethlehem the writings of Origen or the Disciples were referring to. Remember, Origen and Justin Martyr knew exactly where this place was without reading the New Testament accounts. Neither of these men had a New Testament. It was not organized or recognized as Bible until 325 C.E.
In light of all this condemning evidence of the Church of the Holy Nativity, am I suggesting we should be looking for the real birthplace of Jesus closer to Rachel’s Tomb? Not at all. It might just be that the place commonly known as Rachel’s Tomb is not the actual site of Rachel’s burial. I am suggesting that we do our homework! Even if the real birthplace of Jesus is never found, we still need to understand the details of the site. Every detail the Bible gives us is greatly significant. I am on a fascinating journey to discover the Bible like we have never understood it before. God’s Word contains numerous details that make it come to life. We can learn much about God from these details. We commonly overlook most of these details. God’s Word is truly like a rich jewel mine. The deeper we dig the more riches we find!
© Dr. Steven L Smith 2016
[1] Origen, Contra Celsum, chapter 1 section 51.
I am always very happy when anyone comments on my writings. It challenges me to dig deeper and learn. Peter Nagy commented on the previous article, “Wasn’t it three centuries later that Constantine’s mommy Helena established the site as the official birthplace?” Peter you are exactly correct! Queen Helena identified the site as the birthplace of Christ in 326/7 C.E. Why did she choose this site? What was there that made her feel like this was the place? There was not an ancient threshing floor. There was not the City of Bethlehem up the hill very near by. There are no remains of the Tower of the Flock. Did Queen Helena have any evidence that this is the correct site? Is there really a cave under the floor of site? Have there been any official excavations done at the Church of the Holy Nativity showing evidence that this is the correct site?
Besides the evidence we have already considered, there are several other markers from history and the Bible that we must examine. We know that there was an inn close by. According to Luke, Mary gave birth in the stable because the inn was too full. There is an ancient shepherd’s inn near the Church of the Holy Nativity, which is claimed to be the inn that was too full. The problem with that inn fitting the story is that it is 1.42 miles from the Church. The inn had to be very close to the stable to fit the story. The bigger problem with this inn being correct is that this was a shepherd’s inn. The inn that was too full in Luke was an official guest chamber. This is a different Greek word. There would have been a building used for worship at Bethlehem which would have had a guest chamber, not just a shepherd’s inn.
Another problem with the Church of the Holy Nativity being the correct site is its proximity to Rachel’s’ Tomb. The language of the original Hebrew in Genesis 35indicates that Rachel was buried just outside the city of Bethlehem Ephrata. After Jacob buried her, he set up camp with all of his family, servants, flocks, and herds just on the other side of The Tower of the Flock (Tower of Edar). The Tower of the Flock had to be very close to Rachel’s Tomb. The Church of the Holy Nativity is almost 2 miles from Rachel’s Tomb. Most ancient cities were not that large. In the days that Jesus was born that would have been two separate cities. Why did Jacob set up camp just beyond The Tower of the Flock? Because David’s well would have been there. He needed water for his animals.
Peter Nagy implied that Queen Helena named the site over 300 years after Christ’s birth. This is true. It is often assumed that she was much closer in time to the event so she must be correct. 300 years is a long time and could allow for errors in identification. However, Bethlehem Ephrata was a well-known site. It was the site where the love story of Ruth and Boaz took place, the burial place of Rachel, the place where David was born and raised, and the birthplace of Jesus. It was a protected Holy site in ancient times. Believers during the First and Second Temple periods worshipped there as well as the Early Church during the first three centuries.
The writings of Justin Martyr (100- 165 C.E.) and Origen (185-254 C.E.) are used to verify the birthplace of Christ. Their writings give brief overviews of it. They both say He was born in a cave. This would have been a cave that was used as a stable. According to the Mishnah the Tower of the Flock is the place where the sacred sacrifices for the Temple were born and raised. Jesus was born in a cave by the Tower of the Flock, which was used as a stable to birth and raise the sacred sacrificial lambs for Temple sacrifice.
Origen emphasizes that Jesus was born in the same place where David was born.[1] He normally refers to it as Bethlehem of Judah (like Matthew 2 and Luke 2do). Why do these accounts emphasize the territory? Most scholars believe he is distinguishing it from another Bethlehem in northern Israel. If that were the case, the context would eliminate the need to distinguish it from another city so far away no one could confuse the two. I Samuel 10 indicates that the border between Benjamin and Judah is in that very area. It is very likely that the city of Bethlehem was in the territory of Benjamin and the village of Bethlehem (Bethlehem Ephrata) was in the territory of Judah. Anyone in that day would know exactly which Bethlehem the writings of Origen or the Disciples were referring to. Remember, Origen and Justin Martyr knew exactly where this place was without reading the New Testament accounts. Neither of these men had a New Testament. It was not organized or recognized as Bible until 325 C.E.
In light of all this condemning evidence of the Church of the Holy Nativity, am I suggesting we should be looking for the real birthplace of Jesus closer to Rachel’s Tomb? Not at all. It might just be that the place commonly known as Rachel’s Tomb is not the actual site of Rachel’s burial. I am suggesting that we do our homework! Even if the real birthplace of Jesus is never found, we still need to understand the details of the site. Every detail the Bible gives us is greatly significant. I am on a fascinating journey to discover the Bible like we have never understood it before. God’s Word contains numerous details that make it come to life. We can learn much about God from these details. We commonly overlook most of these details. God’s Word is truly like a rich jewel mine. The deeper we dig the more riches we find!
© Dr. Steven L Smith 2016
[1] Origen, Contra Celsum, chapter 1 section 51.