With Christmas just around the corner, carol concerts and nativity plays will be reminding Christians everywhere about the story of Jesus' birth.
However, whether you're singing 'O Little Town of Bethlehem' or dressing your child up as Sheep Number Three, experts say you might be getting the story wrong.
While it is taken as given that Jesus was born on Christmas Day in the town of Bethlehem, this account likely doesn't match the historical reality.
In fact, many historians and archaeologists don't believe that Jesus was born at Bethlehem at all.
While there is almost no denying that Jesus was a real historical figure, the story laid out in the gospel contains historical details and contradictions which don't quite fit.
The story of Bethlehem, shepherds, wise men, and a manger may have only emerged later as Christians tried to tie Jesus' story into an ancient Jewish prophecy.
Instead, some experts suggest that Jesus would have been born 68 miles (175km) away in the small town of Nazareth.
Some archaeologists even suggest that Jesus could have been born in a second Bethlehem just 4 miles (7km) away from Mary and David's hometown.
The case for Bethlehem of Judea
According to the traditional story laid out in Christian belief, Jesus was born in a manger in a town called Bethlehem of Judea.
This town, about six miles south of Jerusalem, is now located in a part of the Palestinian West Bank and has become a key point of pilgrimage for Christians around the world.
The best evidence we have for this being Jesus's real birthplace comes from the Bible.
Dr Clyde Billington, a biblical scholar and executive director of the Institute for Biblical Archaeology, told MailOnline: 'Bethlehem in Judea is mentioned in Matthew, Luke, and John as the birthplace of Christ.'
After 2,000 years, any physical evidence that Jesus might have left behind is long since lost, meaning that the Bible is all we have to go from.
While these sources are distant and naturally quite biased, they are about as close to a historical source as scholars can get for the facts of Jesus' life.
The Gospel of Matthew, for example, is believed to have been written sometime around 80 AD which places it about 50 years after Jesus' death.
Dr Billington adds: 'I believe, as do most Christian scholars, that all three of these Gospels were written in the First Century AD.
'Thus, the identification of Bethlehem in Judea as the birthplace of Christ dates to the earliest days of the Church.'
Based on that evidence, Dr Billington says he is 'convinced that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem in Judea.'
In terms of archaeology, evidence is scant, but researchers have at least found evidence that Bethlehem of Judea is old enough for this story to make sense.
An archaeological survey of Bethlehem in 1969 uncovered a number of pieces of pottery dating back to the Iron Age around 1000 to 586 BC.
A later excavation near the Church of the Nativity in 2016 was undertaken by Dr Joan Taylor of King's College London and Dr Shimon Gibson of the University of North Carolina and Charlotte.
Their work uncovered a number of pots and artefacts dating back to the first century AD.
Speaking at the time, Dr Gibson said: 'We're sinking a trench down to the early levels, and we have, without doubt, pottery dating to the time of Jesus.
'What we've been able to prove up until now is the existence of a village from the time of Jesus. This is very important.'
The problem with Bethlehem
Part of the reason that many scholars doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea is that even the best Biblical sources don't all suggest this is true.
Professor Helen Bond, a leading expert on Christian history at the University of Edinburgh, told MailOnline: 'Our earliest gospel - that of Mark - starts his account with Jesus' ministry and says nothing about his birth.
'And the apostle Paul - who knew Jesus' brothers - says nothing about Bethlehem.'
Likewise, even the Gospels that do claim Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea can't agree on the details.
Matthew's gospel suggests that the holy family lived in Bethlehem and only moved later to flee King Herod's massacre of the innocents after Jesus' birth.
Luke, on the other hand, gives us the story that will be most familiar to many Christians.
According to Luke, Mary and Joseph start out in Nazareth but need to go to Bethlehem to be counted in a Roman census.
This, however, is where things start to fall apart for the Bethlehem narrative.
Professor Bond says: 'Luke suggests it [the census] is over the whole Roman world and that people had to go back to their ancestral homes.
'There's no evidence for a whole-empire census at this point, and while ancient people had to go to a local centre to be counted, they didn't have to find an "ancestral home" - whatever that would actually mean.'
Biblical historians have worked hard to try and find what Luke could be referring to but this census just doesn't seem to be a real event.
There was a small census around the time implemented by the Roman legate of Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, but this was about a decade after the birth of Jesus and wouldn't have affected the holy family in Galilee.
'It looks as though Luke needs to get the holy family down to Bethlehem, remembers that there was a census at around this time, and brings it into his story,' says Professor Bond.
Why does Bethlehem matter?
The reason that the Gospel writers seem so determined to have Jesus born in Bethlehem is found in an ancient Jewish prophecy.
The Old Testament prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea, believed to be the city of King David.
If Jesus was going to be the Jewish Messiah, then he needed to have been born in Bethlehem.
Professor Bond says that this is 'almost certainly' the reason that the later Gospel writers insist that Jesus was born in the city despite their inconsistencies.
This tradition probably emerged sometime after Jesus' death, around the time that the later gospels were written.
Professor Bond adds: 'I don't think that everyone was going around thinking that the Messiah would necessarily be born in Bethlehem.
'But once Jesus was believed to be the Messiah and a "son of David", then it made sense to link his birth with that of David.'
A second Bethlehem
However, if Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem of Judea, the question remains as to where his birthplace might be.
One theory that has sparked quite a bit of controversy is that there might be another Bethlehem other than Bethlehem of Judea.
Aviram Oshri, an archaeologist from the Israel Antiquities Authority, believes Jesus was actually born in a small village called Bethlehem of Galilee, over 60 miles (100km) from Bethlehem of Judea.
Having spent more than a decade excavating the Galilee site, Mr Oshri is now convinced that the ancient village near Nazareth is the true birthplace of Jesus.
Key to his theory is the notion that it wouldn't have made sense for a pregnant Mary to travel all the way to Bethlehem of Judea from their hometown of Nazareth.
Speaking to the Times of Israel, Mr Oshri says: 'How would a woman who is nine months pregnant travel 175 kilometres on a donkey all the way to Bethlehem of Judea?
'It makes much more sense that she would have travelled seven kilometres, the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee.'
During his years of excavation, he found a massive Byzantine-era church with a hidden cave, parts of a wall around the village, and a two-story building that could be a guest house or inn.
These details offer tantalisingly close parallels to the Biblical story of Jesus' birth and could date back to the first century AD.
On the other hand, Mr Oshri points to the well-documented sparseness of first-century archaeological finds in Bethlehem of Judea.
However, Mr Oshri's theories have been widely criticised with the Israel Antiquities Authority refusing to consider the idea or allow further investigation.
Likewise, while Mr Oshri has shown that there could have been a settlement at Bethlehem of Galilee, there is still nothing which explains why the holy family would have gone there.
Dr Billington says that there is 'not a single ancient source' which could place Jesus' birth in this location.
Jesus of Nazareth
However, there is a far simpler answer which has been under experts' noses the entire time.
Instead of assuming that the holy family undertook an arduous trek due to a dubious census or that they travelled to an obscure nearby village, it makes much more sense that Jesus was simply born in his hometown of Nazareth.
We know from the Gospel sources that Mary and Joseph lived in the tiny Galilean village of Nazareth and that this is probably where Jesus grew up.
Unlike Bethlehem, this village had no prophetic claim to fame but it is the most consistent feature in the biblical account of Jesus' life.
Professor Bond says: 'There's no specific evidence, but Jesus is always known as "Jesus of Nazareth" and none of our earliest sources say anything about Bethlehem.
'It's most likely to have simply been Nazareth, where the family lived.'
Professor Bond says that many critics now suggest that Bethlehem was only added in later to enhance 'Jesus' Davidic heritage.'
She adds: 'More critical scholars will argue that the tradition is late, that the stories are completely different in Matthew and Luke, that it's easy to see how the Bethlehem tradition came about, and that great men in antiquity tended to attract stories of great and miraculous births.'
Additionally, recent evidence has also revealed some details which could explain why Jesus was drawn towards a life of religious dedication.
An excavation of Nazareth undertaken in 2020 by Dr Ken Dark of the University of Reading found the town was substantially larger than previously thought, intensely religious, and deeply anti-Roman.
Compared to the neighbouring town of Sepphoris, the people of Nazareth only used ceramics and other artefacts regarded as ritually pure.
Likewise, analysis of the agricultural land in the surrounding area shows that Nazareth strictly kept to a religious prohibition against using human excrement to fertilise the fields.
Additionally, the area is known to have been the site of an anti-Roman revolt in 4BC in which rebels attacked a military arsenal in the centre of Sepphoris.
Beneath Nazareth itself, excavations have found a network of tunnels dug by rebels to hide at least 100 people from the Romans.
However, while this might help us understand the political and cultural climate in which Jesus grew up, it is hardly the entire picture.
Professor Bond says that although Jesus was very likely to have been born in Nazareth, the fact that the Bible focuses on Bethlehem is just as important to know.
She concludes: 'It's better I think to understand the gospel birth narratives as poetic picture language, designed to underscore who Jesus really was and his significance rather than worry too much about their historical accuracy.'
The Church of the Nativity, located six miles (10 km) outside of Jerusalem, is one of the most important religious sites in the world.
It has been recognised as the birthplace of Jesus since at least the Second Century and has been listed as a Unesco world heritage site since 2012.
The original church was built in 339 AD, but was rebuilt after fire in the 6th century and it is one of the oldest churches in the world still in daily use.
An estimated two million people make pilgrimages to the site each year to visit the church and the shrine below, the Grotto, where Jesus of Nazareth is believed to have been born.
But the region is of key importance to other religions as well. Almost 1,000 years before Jesus, Bethlehem was the city of King David.
Today, the site in Bethlehem is part of a large religious complex.
Set in the marble floor of the Grotto is a silver star which represents the spot where Jesus was born, installed in 1717 and surrounded by lamps to represent the different Christian communities.
Comments