Why does Alma 7:10 say that Jesus will be born at Jerusalem when
Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1-7 speak of Christ being born in Bethlehem?
Since virtually everyone - children and adults - in Joseph Smith's
day knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, how could the prophet
possibly have "erred" The name Jerusalem has to be deliberate.1
It is, in fact, significant that in this passage Alma did not claim that
Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but "at Jerusalem which is
the land of our forefathers." While it is not found in the Bible even
once, the term "land of Jerusalem" occurs over 40 times in the Book of
Mormon, while other passages also refer to Jerusalem as a "land" (Alma
7:10; 21:1; 3 Nephi 20:33, 46) This is a red
herring - it's irrelevant. The prophecy does not say Jesus would
be born "in the land of Jerusalem", it says "at Jerusalem".
Lehi and Nephi seem to have known the designation of Jerusalem as both a
city and the land it governed. Lehi's sons, thinking to pay Laban for
the plates of brass, "went down to the land of [their] inheritance" to
gather up their wealth (1 Nephi 3:22). They then "went up again" to
Jerusalem to meet with Laban (1 Nephi 3:23). He chased them away and,
after a time, they returned to "the walls of Jerusalem" (1 Nephi 4:4),
and Nephi "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban."
From this, it is evident that the "Jerusalem" where Lehi lived had to be
other than the city, and therefore somewhere nearby, in the "land of
Jerusalem."
Throughout the Book of Mormon, the terms city and land seem to be
interchangeable. There is a city of Nephi and a land of Nephi, a city of
Zarahemla and a land of Zarahemla, and so forth. This is especially
clear in Alma 50:14, where we read of the construction of a new site:
"They called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah." The pattern
followed by the Nephites (and by the Lamanites when they became
sedentary) was evidently brought from the Old World. In ancient Israel,
the "fenced [walled] cities" were places of refuge for farmers in
surrounding villages (see Leviticus 25:31; 1 Samuel 6:18; Ezekiel
38:11). In time of war, the peasants could flee to the protection of the
city walls, where arms were stored for defense. This is precisely what
we find described in Mosiah 9:14-16.
Biblical cities, like those in the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby
land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city,
and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs,
fields and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are
sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in
Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that
Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; cf.
15:5-7).
The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is
followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of
the northern kingdom of Israel. Old Testament scriptures frequently
extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of
Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kings 13:32; 2
Kings 17:24, 26; 23:19).
Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at
el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known from
the Bible to have been ancient cities. But there is evidence that, even
in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of
Jerusalem." One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the
land of Jerusalem" named BLaƭi, [problem with diacritics here] which is
the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in
English Bibles.
We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic
Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the
land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and
antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.2
1. From a pure logic
standpoint this statement is so fraudulent I hardly know where to
start. First, to make the statement that "virtually everyone" knew
something almost 200 years ago is a conclusion unsupported by evidence.
Secondly, even if such had been the case, there is no reason to conclude
that Joseph Smith knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem - this is a logical
fallacy (potentially argumentum ad populum, or simply in improperly
structured argument: For example, if I say, "most people can see." and I
know that Stevie Wonder is a person, I cannot conclude Stevie Wonder
can see.). |
|
Thirdly,
you cannot logically conclude that even if Joseph did know Jesus was
born in Bethlehem that he did not make a mistake when he dictated
"Bethlehem" to the scribes writing out the Book of Mormon for him. The
only way to make that logical conclusion is to accept the premise that
people never make mistakes. Both cities are prominently mentioned in
the Bible and Joseph may have simply made a mistake...which is possible if
he was not actually translating from a source.
2. First, as pointed out in
the text, the whole argument is a logical fallacy called a "Red Herring".
The term comes from the practice of tying a rope around a red herring and
dragging it across the "preferred path" of hunting dogs-in-training.
The whole idea was to train the dogs to stay focused on the real target and
not get distracted. |
|
Likewise, we
won't get distracted by this red herring - we'll stay on the issue.
The issue is was Jesus born "at Jerusalem"? No. God's prophecies
are very specific - He doesn't need to "ballpark" things.
Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem
Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will
come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of
old, from ancient times."
|
|
Specificity is
important! If I were to describe someone living in Minneapolis as
living "at St. Paul", that wouldn't be accurate, would it? In fact,
Minneapolis and St. Paul are much closer to one another than Bethlehem and
Jerusalem. |
|
Bethlehem was a
very important and well-known city to the Hebrews:
§
Bethlehem was where
Jacob’s wife, Rachel was buried (Gen 35:19)
§
Bethlehem was a boundary
marker in God’s plan to divide the Promised Land (Joshua 19:5).
§
Bethlehem was the setting
of the story and book of Ruth (Ruth 1:19,22; 2:4; 4:11)
§
Bethlehem was the
birthplace and place of anointing of David.
§
Bethlehem was the scene of
the three great fighting men who risked their lives to get water for David
(2 Samuel 23:14).
In
short, with the importance and significance Bethlehem held in the history of
the Jews, there was no reason for God to make His prophecy more obscure.
The fact is, Joseph Smith made a mistake - which
should not have happened based on
how the Book
of Mormon was allegedly translated! |
If you would like an in depth analysis of five other Joseph Smith prophecies
that failed to come to pass, click here for our Solving
the Mormon Puzzle program.
|