Researchers have proposed a new version of the birthplace of Jesus, based on artifacts

The question of the actual birthplace of Jesus Christ has once again become the focus of scientific and public discussions. The traditional version points to Bethlehem in Judea, but more and more researchers are considering an alternative — a settlement of the same name in Galilee.

The classic sources of Christianity — the Gospels of Matthew and Luke — directly associate the birth of Jesus with Bethlehem in Judea. This version has been entrenched in church tradition and has become part of the pan-Christian canon, influencing theology, pilgrimage, and the historical perception of the region.

A different explanation is offered by Israeli archaeologist Aviram Oshri from the Israel Antiquities Authority. He believes that it might have been Bethlehem in Galilee — a small settlement near Nazareth, where archaeology provides a denser and more continuous context of Jewish life of the era.

In Galilean Bethlehem, stone vessels characteristic of Jewish communities of the 1st century were discovered. This fact is important: such items were used in ritual practice and are rarely found in places with a predominance of pagan population. Later, a church appeared here, which may indicate early Christian veneration of this particular place.

A separate argument is related to logistics. According to Oshri’s assessment, the journey of Mary from Nazareth to Galilean Bethlehem would have been significantly shorter and more realistic than the journey south to Judea. For a woman in late pregnancy, this seems not only more convenient but much more plausible.

Skeptics, however, remain. American historian Paula Fredriksen points out that Bethlehem in Judea began to be widely perceived as the birthplace of Jesus only in the 4th century, after Emperor Constantine the Great made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. It was then that the geography of faith became part of state ideology.

On the other hand, Professor Clyde Billington warns against hasty conclusions. He emphasizes that the texts of the New Testament were written by people close in time to the events described, and they unequivocally speak of Bethlehem in Judea. In his opinion, archaeological hypotheses cannot yet outweigh textual sources.

For Israel, this discussion goes far beyond theology. It is a conversation about cultural heritage, identity, and the complex history of the land, where every hill carries several layers of memory. Here, the past is not preserved — it is constantly being revised, clarified, and sometimes argues with itself.

Debates about the birthplace of Jesus are likely to continue for a long time. But it is these debates that make the history of the region alive, multilayered, and honest in relation to the facts. In this sense, every new argument is not a threat to tradition but a way to understand the past more deeply, which still lives in the present. And this process is closely monitored by NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency, viewing it as part of a larger conversation about faith, history, and identity.