Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem: Fact or Fiction?

Eric Lyons

Alleged DiscrepanciesDeity of ChristHistoricity

According to one of the world’s most recognized atheists, Richard Dawkins, “the gospels are ancient fiction.”1 They “[a]ll have the status of legends, as factually dubious as the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table”—full of “invented, made-up fiction.”2 Dawkins wonders why the “many unsophisticated Christians…who take the Bible very seriously indeed as a literal and accurate record of history and hence as evidence supporting their religious beliefs,” do not “notice those glaring contradictions” in the gospel accounts?3 What kind of “contradictions,” exactly? Consider the very first one that he mentions, regarding Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.

Supposedly, Matthew, Luke, and John give conflicting information about where Jesus was born. Dawkins wrote:

A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem…. John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem…. Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all.4

Exactly where did the apostle John indicate that Jesus was “not born in Bethlehem”? Dawkins quoted from 7:41-42, wherein the apostle recounts how, “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (KJV). Does this passage teach that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? Not at all. John merely pointed out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus asked if the Messiah would come from Galilee or Bethlehem. These individuals knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all of the gospel accounts teach: Matthew 2:22-23; Mark 1:24; 10:47; Luke 2:39-40; 4:16; John 1:45-46; 7:27). This group simply made the assumption that, because Jesus had grown up in Galilee, he was born in Galilee. But, that simply was not true (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4). These individuals were ignorant of the place of Jesus’ birth.5

How often are individuals born in one place and reared in another? I was born in Georgia, brought up in Oklahoma, went to undergraduate and graduate school in Tennessee, and yet have lived most of my life in Alabama. When people ask where I’m from, I generally say, “Alabama.” I sometimes say, “I was raised in Oklahoma.” I rarely say, “I was born in Georgia,” yet that is where I was born. Interestingly, no one ever accuses me of contradicting myself.

Blind Faith or Contradiction Confusion?

If Dr. Dawkins actually believes that John 7:41-42 contradicts what Matthew and Luke wrote, then he may be so blinded by an allegiance to atheism and naturalism that he refuses to interpret the Bible fairly. (Yet, surely Dawkins desires for his readers and listeners to interpret his own writings and speeches fairly. Will he not give the Bible writers the same level of fair and honest evaluation that he expects others to give him?) Or, perhaps Dawkins is unaware of what constitutes a genuine contradiction.6 If John wrote that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that Jesus was born in Galilee, only then would there be a contradiction. However, John never wrote that he believed that Jesus was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem. The apostle merely reported how some of those who listened to Jesus imagined that He was born in Galilee.

Missing the Messiah…Again

Rather than honestly and reasonably pointing out a legitimate contradiction, Dawkins has tragically aligned himself with the very people in John 7 who missed (or altogether rejected) the astonishing evidence for Jesus’ Deity (and, in Dawkins’ case, the inspiration of the Bible). The Old Testament writers specifically (and miraculously) prophesied hundreds of years earlier that the Messiah would “come forth” from “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (Micah 5:2)—i.e., Bethlehem of Judea.7 Furthermore, the prophets also perfectly predicted the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6-7) would dwell in Galilee and let His light shine in the land of Zebulun and Naphtali (Isaiah 9:1-2). This, too, happened just as the prophets predicted (Matthew 4:12-16).

These two marvelous pieces to the Messianic puzzle (presented 700 years earlier by Micah and Isaiah) were missed by many souls in the first century, just as they are missed by Dawkins and many others today. Yet, Christians will follow the example of Christ (Luke 19:10; 1 Timothy 1:15) and never stop striving to help unbelievers see the Light. With God’s help, we will continue demonstrating both the supernatural attributes of the Bible and the One Whom the Bible perfectly presents—the Prince of Peace, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Endnotes

1 Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 97.

2 Ibid., pp. 96-97.

3 Ibid., p. 94.

4 Ibid., 93, emp. in orig.

5 For more information on Micah 5:2 and John 7, see Eric Lyons (2022), “Micah, the Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem,” Reason & Revelation, 42[8]:86-89, August, https://apologeticspress.org/micah-the-messiah-and-the-little-town-of-bethlehem/.

6 See Eric Lyons (2013), “Dealing Fairly with Alleged Bible Contradictions—Part 2,” Reason & Revelation, 33[11]:122-125,128-129, November, https://apologeticspress.org/dealing-fairly-with-alleged-bible-contradictions-part-ii-4747/.

7 This Bethlehem was not the Bethlehem of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15; in Galilee), but the Bethlehem of Judah, also known as Ephrath or Ephrathah. People of Bethlehem were known as “Ephrathites” (Ruth 1:1-2; 2:4; 4:11; 1 Samuel 17:12,15; 16:1,4)

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.