John 7:40-44  Some of the crowd began to say, “This really is the Prophet!”  Others said, “This is the Christ!” But still others said, “No, for the Christ doesn’t come from Galilee, does he?  Don’t the scriptures say that the Christ is a descendant of David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?”  So there was a division in the crowd because of Jesus.  Some of them were wanting to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

Did John know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

Harper’s Bible Commentary notes that the supposition that ‘Jesus is known to come from Galilee (cf. Jn 1:46)’ is ‘never contradicted in the Fourth Gospel.’

More forthrightly, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) regards the Gospels as examples of ‘ancient fiction’, to be compared with the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.  He writes:

‘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’ (p. 93).

In response, we note, first of all, that it was not ‘his followers’ who expressed surprise, but some members of the ‘crowd’ – probably the same section as expressed hostility towards Jesus.

But, further, Dawkins ignores (or, more probably, is ignorant of) a widely-recognised characteristic of the Fourth Gospel – irony.

In the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels:

‘When Jn 7:42 is taken as indicating that the Fourth Evangelist knew nothing of Jesus’ birth in the city of David, the intentional ambiguity found throughout John’s Gospel is being misunderstood’

F.F. Bruce writes:

‘If we infer from this passage that the fourth Evangelist either did not know or did not accept Jesus’ Davidic descent or nativity in Bethlehem, we expose our own failure to appreciate his delicate handling of this situation.’

As Bruner remarks, John (in canonical balance with the other Evangelists) is more interested in Jesus’ heavenly origins than in his earthly origins, although he shows that he is aware of these through his ironic use of statements such as the present one.  In other words, John knows that Jesus is ‘from Bethlehem’, but he is, more importantly, ‘from God’.

Bruner cites Godet:

‘John often takes pleasure in reporting objections which, for his readers who are acquainted with the Gospel history, turn immediately into proofs’.

And Bruner quotes Culpepper:

‘[B]ecause one of the author’s favorite devices is to allow Jesus’ opponents to speak the truth unawares, the balance is in favor of the assumption that the author and his intended readers knew the tradition of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.’

Kruse underlines the Johannine irony:

‘The irony was, of course, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. His origins were not in Galilee as these people supposed. More important than this, of course, is that Jesus’ real origins were in heaven, from when he had been sent by the Father.’

In DJG, 2nd ed., art. ‘Archeology and Geography’:

‘When John 7:42 is taken as indicating that the Fourth Evangelist knew nothing of Jesus’ birth in the city of David, the intentional ambiguity found throughout John’s Gospel is being misunderstood.’

For Bruner, Chrysostom captures well ‘the irony of the intertextual debaters’ “knowing” so much about Jesus’ origins at all: Only a little earlier in the chapter Jesus’ questioners had said with great assurance, “we know where this man is from; but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from” (v. 27); but now they suddenly say with equal assurance, “The Messiah isn’t [like Jesus] coming from Galilee, is he?… the Messiah comes from Bethlehem” (vv. 41–42). Chrysostom cites their two very different positions: “ ‘The Christ will come from Bethlehem’ and ‘When the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from,’ ” and asks, “What is clearer than this inconsistency? For they were intent on one thing only: namely, [on] not believing in Him.”’

Two well-known non-conservative scholars agree:

‘Paul, in opening his letter to the Romans, speaks of “the gospel concerning his [God’s] Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh” (1:3)….This [John 7:41-42] is a typical instance of Johannine irony. He presumes that Jesus was born at Bethlehem and, therefore, the crowd’s ignorance confirms what they deny. Jesus is the Messiah, and he was born in Bethlehem. Paul and John indicate that common Christian tradition that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah and was – whether literally or metaphorically – born in Bethlehem.’ (Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The First Christmas.  Cited here)

For other examples of Johannine irony, see Jn 7:35; 11:48; 13:38.

Lincoln wonders how the evangelist would expect his readers to respond to this objection (that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem):

1. It may be that the evangelist thought that ‘any such speculation about Jesus’ place of earthly origin is beside the point, because Jesus’ real place of origin is above’.
2. It may be that (as noted by a number of scholars – see above) the evangelist is using irony.  He readers would know from their acquaintance with the other Gospel traditions that Jesus’ birthplace was indeed Bethlehem and not Galilee.

Lincoln notes that as early as Jn 1:46-49 Nathanael is reported as believing that Jesus came from Nazareth.  This was a scandal as far as Nathanael was concerned, and yet he was still willing to confess that Jesus is ‘the King of Israel’.

Lincoln asks, pertinently,

‘how likely is it that the evangelist would raise an objection based on a specific scripture, in this case Mic. 5:2, if he did not think that the objection could be met and that Jesus had actually fulfilled this scripture?’

In conclusion, Lincoln writes:

‘It could be, then, that the evangelist is aware of the tradition behind Matthew and Luke or of the actual birth narratives, although having Jesus born in Bethlehem is not at all necessary for his own distinctive Christological perspective. If so, the point here may be that the objectors misunderstand what the real question about Jesus’ origin is, and, even when they formulate their own inadequate question, are unaware that that question is one to which Christian believers have already given considerable reflection.’

Blomberg (Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel) comes to a similar conclusion:

‘The confusion over Jesus’ birthplace (vv. 41b-43) is a classic example of Johannine irony. By the end of the first century both John and his readers would have known of Christ’s birth in Bethlehem (cf. Matt. 2:1-12; Luke 2:1-20), but many during Jesus’ lifetime would not have known this. Jesus is generally identified as coming from Galilee because that is where he spent the majority of his childhood… Once again John’s narrative reflects historical verisimilitude.’