.jpg)
While Critics of the LDS Faith always use Alma 7:10 to claim it contradicts the infancy Gospel narratives of Matthew and Luke; Alma 7:10 is not a contradiction regarding the birthplace of Christ when it says, "in Jerusalem, land of our forefathers". One scholarly argument appears to show that Christ may have been born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem. Scholars Daniel Peterson, Matthew Roper, and William J. Hamblin show how the term "land of" fits within historical context of Jesus Birth, and Scholars agree that Jerusalem designates the city as well as the land as adequate geographical realities.
One of these critics recently published a short post regarding this pedestrian criticism. Paul Gee writes in his post Book of Mormon Contradictions: Alma 7:10 and says this:
If you look at a map, Jerusalem and Bethlehem are in two different places, not a suburb of one another like Mormons like to say. To say that someone was born in Jerusalem means they were born in Jerusalem and not Bethlehem. The same goes with people that say they were at Jerusalem; this does not mean they also went to Bethlehem. However, the Book of Mormon claims that Jesus was born at Jerusalem, which is a contradiction to what the Bible says.
There is a problem with this assertion - and it is an all-too-common misstep of those who attempt to criticize the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the validity of the truthfulness of both. The passage in Alma 7:10 (which Paul Gee quotes) tells us that the Savior will be born at Jerusalem, the Land of our forefathers. Alma was not referencing the City of Jerusalem. The messianic sermon and prophecy of Alma 7 explicitly states that Christ will be born in the land of their forefathers - the land of Jerusalem.
In the Biblical Archaeological Review: November/December 2014 edition, Philip J. King writes the following:
Nazareth, an obscure agricultural village in Southern Galilee, is not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), in the Talmud or by the historian Josephus. Joseph may have settled in Nazareth because of its proximity to Sepphoris where opportunities for work were readily available when Herod Antipas was reconstructing his capital there. Jesus and his family probably spent a significant amount of time at Nazareth. Luke’s Gospel is a valuable source of information about Jesus’ childhood. For example, Luke relates that Jesus and his parents were still living at Nazareth when Jesus was 12 years old. Every year Jesus and his parents went to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover festival and then returned to Nazareth. Luke relates that on one particular year Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, unbeknownst to Mary and Joseph, to engage in discussion with the teachers in the Temple. Subsequently, he went with his parents and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them (Luke 2:41–51).
King has a footnote to a previous Biblical Archaeological Society Review Article written by Steve Mason where the question of the Saviors birthplace is in question when someone takes a serious investigation into how the Synoptic Gospel narratives actually disagree, rather than are in harmony, of the Bethlehem birthplace. Matthew's Bethlehem story is strikingly different than that of Lukes. Mark, the earliest gospel, does not even reference any historicity of Jesus infancy and birthplace. Read alone, according to Mason, Mark appears to solely point out that Nazareth may have been the actual birthplace of the Savior:
Following the initial account of Jesus’ birth in Luke, the remarkable Bethlehem story plays no further role (just as in Matthew). Significantly, the author describes Nazareth as “the place where Jesus was raised” (Luke 4:16) rather than as Jesus’ native town (cf. Mark 6:1), but Jesus continues to be identified as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “the Nazarene” (Luke 4:34, 18:37, 24:19; Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14 et al.). Further, when Jesus comes to trial, Luke—alone—insists that because he was a Galilean by origin, Jesus had to be tried by Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee who was visiting Jerusalem for Passover (Luke 23:6–7). There is no remembrance of Bethlehem as Jesus’ ancestral home.
This begs the question - are Modern Christians prone to adhere to more historical traditions regarding Christ - or are they more apt to embrace and accept historical reality and truth? When pitting tradition to historical rationality, most critics of the LDS Faith tend to lean more into tradition rather than historical reality and truth. This is based on the stronghold of Eisegesis rather than Exegesis. And what is the historical reality? Mason sums it up quite well with this:
Where was Jesus born? Was it Bethlehem or Nazareth or even Sepphoris, Tiberias or Jerusalem? We cannot know for sure because the early Christians themselves apparently did not know.
Thus, when we look to Alma 7:10 from a historic reality - the idea that the Savior will be born at Jerusalem, the land of our forefathers - Alma merely was prophesying Christ's birth will take place in the land - not the city. Whether that was Bethlehem, Sepphoris, or Nazareth - we do not know. What we do know is that Christ was born to fulfill the will and desire of the Father - to become the mediator, high priest, and Savior of humanity - opening the way to immortality and eternal life.
One thing our critics, like Paul Gee, forget is that the Arman Letters appear to use the same terminology when referring to the Land and not City of Jerusalem:
The so-called "Amarna letters" (fourteenth century B.C.) likewise use the phrase. 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.
This evidence comes from the scholarly work of Daniel Peterson, Matthew Roper, and William J. Hamblin: On Alma 7:10 and the birthplace of Jesus. This scholarly source establishes the inconsistency apparent in the arguments our critics attempt to use.
What does this do? It leaves us to understand that Paul Gee is using a pedestrian criticism that is refuted from a Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern scholarly assessment and examination. He is merely engaging in sharing misinformation - being deceptive, dishonest, and intellectually manipulative.
