Jesus, born in a cave in about 4 BC
Debate continues about when Jesus was born and whether Bethlehem was the actual birthplace. Still, some sense can be made of the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke as GUNTHER SIMMERMACHER explains in this edited excerpt, drawing from two separate chapters from his book The Holy Land Trek.
The Annunciation, which activates the Incarnation of the Word, is where the story of Jesus’ earthly life begins. Then, on a date unknown to us, Mary gave birth to the baby boy whom she and her husband Joseph named Yeshua, as they were instructed to do by angels (the name Jesus is the Latinised version of Yeshua).

A nun prays in front of the star marking the site where according to tradition Jesus was born in the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank town of Bethlehem Dec. 20. (CNS photo/Debbie Hill) (Dec. 20, 2011)
The year of that birth certainly was not 1 AD. The Gospel frames the Nativity story around the latter years of the reign of King Herod, who is believed to have died in March or April 4 BC, so the date of Jesus’ birth probably is no later than that.
There is also much debate about whether the birth took place in Bethlehem; the Gospel accounts do not entirely accord with the historical record.
Quirinus’ census in Luke, for example, could not have taken place before 6 AD, the year the Syrian governor took office. It is true that Quirinus did order a census, but by then Jesus had already been born. Some scholars believe that Matthew located the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem as a theological device.
Luke also locates the birth in Bethlehem, but by a different route, and without the theological pretexts ascribed to Matthew. It is possible that both knew of a tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and therefore shaped their versions of the Nativity story around that.
The Bethlehem birth is repeated in second-century writings, such as the influential Protoevangelium of James and the apologia of St Justin Martyr (100-165). Origen of Alexandria, having visited Bethlehem himself between 231 and 246, mentioned that Christians were reverencing in the city.
Either way, the idea of fully-booked inns and undignified stables – the latter tradition being the product of the European understanding – might not correspond with the truth.
Jesus was likely born in a cave, as St Justin Martyr wrote. The cave would have been deliberately selected for warmth, tranquillity and safety.
It might have been part of a domestic residence, perhaps a house built above or in front of a cave, divided into living quarters for humans and at the back an area for animals and storage (such structures exist in Bethlehem and elsewhere even today).
When Luke says that Mary laid the newborn Christ in a manger because there were no vacant lodgings, then this might mean that the part of the cave inhabited by the humans was full, but that the hosts let Mary give birth in the section used to keep the animals. Perhaps they did so because that part was the warmest and quietest. This would explain the manger, a feeding trough carved in stone, which Mary used as a crib for the swaddled baby.
The location of Jesus’ birth was venerated by the earliest Christians. The reputed spot of the manger is marked with a 14-point silver star in the crypt of the basilica of the Nativity, one of the world’s oldest active churches.
In the second century the Romans built pagan structures over the sites associated with Christ’s birth in Bethlehem and his death and Resurrection in Jerusalem (whether they did so out of expedience or as a means of suppressing Christian veneration is a matter of ongoing debate).

A pilgrim enters the church of the Nativity; the entrance was lowered to thwart horse-bound attacks. (Photos: Gunther Simmermacher)
We ought to thank them for that, because they conveniently signposted these places for later generations of Christians. So when Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, came to Bethlehem, she had the pagan groves dedicated to Adonis torn down and replaced them with a church (some argue that, conversely, the Christians randomly appropriated the site from paganism).
Construction for the first church of the Nativity began in 327. It was dedicated to Mary on May 31, 339. That church was burnt down by the Samaritans in 529; but mosaics from the floor of the original church have been preserved and can still be viewed.
The present structure, much larger than its predecessor, was built in 565 on the order of Emperor Justinian. It might have gone the sorry way of most churches during the Persian sack of 614, had the invaders’ general, Shahrbaraz, not spotted mosaics of the Magi in Persian dress on the church’s walls. Touched by what he understood to be a show of respect for his people, Shahrbaraz spared the church.
Today, pilgrims usually have to queue for a while to enter the grotto of the Nativity, and sometimes that can involve some pushing and shoving by other groups. Once one gets to the silver star, planted on a marble slab that covers the manger, there isn’t much time for prayer and reflection as pilgrims are rushed along, especially if Mass is celebrated at the back of the small crypt.
The grotto’s decor has a rather gaudy appearance to those of more temperate tastes. It seems to have underwhelmed throughout the ages. St Jerome (c347-420), who translated the Bible into Latin while cooped up in a nearby cave, complained: “If I could only see that manger in which the Lord lay! Now, as if to honour the Christ, we have removed the poor one and placed there a silver one; however, for me the one which was removed is more precious.

Mosaic from the first church of the Nativity, which was built in 339 and destroyed in 529. (Photos: Gunther Simmermacher)
- Archbishop Tlhagale: The ‘Gangster’ - February 7, 2025
- Bishop Edward Risi: The Liturgist - February 5, 2025
- Archbishop Nubuasah: Apostle of the Batswana - February 3, 2025