The Land of Jerusalem

In Alma chapter 7 verse 10 we read concerning Jesus:

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

This verse is frequently used by those who would question the validity of the Book of Mormon as an example of an obvious error made by Joseph Smith. This is, in fact, the most frequent Book of Mormon verse quoted by those who would call the book fraud. They point out that even in Joseph's day "Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem." This discussion will make the point that this verse, rather than error, is a further witness of the validity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient record. This witness has three elements: 1) The consistency of Book of Mormon language. 2) The testimony of ancient records. 3) The anachronism of expecting the naming of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus.

The Consistency of Book of Mormon Language

The expression "land of something" occurs 373 times in the Book of Mormon: "The land of Nephi," "the land of Zarahemla," "the land of Shilom," "the land of Helam," "the land of our fathers," and "the land of Jerusalem." The phrase "land of Jerusalem" occurs 41 times. This is how the writers of the Book of Mormon invariably refer to "that land from which we came." The only mention in the Book of Mormon of any other Israelite geographical location, outside of the quotations of Isaiah, is Lehi reference in, 1 Nephi 10, of Bethabara as the place where Jesus would be baptized.

Dr. Hugh Nibley makes this further point:

When we speak of Jerusalem, it is important to notice Nephi's preference for a non-Biblical expression, "the land of Jerusalem" (1 Nephi 3:10), in designating his homeland. While he and his brothers always regard "the land of Jerusalem" as their home, it is perfectly clear from a number of passages that "the land of our father's inheritance" (1 Nephi 3:16) cannot possibly be within, or even very near, the city, even though Lehi had "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days" (1 Nephi 1:4). (Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, p. 4)

As Dr. Nibley states, that the record clearly describes the "Jerusalem" home of the wealthy Lehi as being without the walls and some distance from the city. Yet, from the very beginning of the record and consistently maintained throughout, this place of family origin is identified as being either "at Jerusalem" or in "the land of Jerusalem." This is the terminology of this people. While admittedly not an exact biblical terminology, we will see that there is ample evidence to defend an ancient use of this expression.

The Testimony of Ancient Records

In 1887, a country woman of Tell el Amarna, a village on the Upper Nile, found in a rubbish heap a collection of inscribed clay tablets. This proved to be an ancient file of correspondence written chiefly from Egyptian overlords in Palestine to the Pharaoh of Egypt. These Amarna letters appear to be from about the time of Joshua, the time when Israel was settling in Palestine. To date, 358 of these cuneiform tablets have been found. The Amarna letters provide a beginning to our ancient trail of testimony, as explained here by Dr. Nibley:

In the Amarna letters we read of "the land of Jerusalem" as an area larger than the city itself, and even learn in one instance that "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib, has been captured." It was the rule in Palestine and Syria, as the same letters show, for a large area around a city and all the inhabitants of that area to bear the name of the city. (Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, p. 5)

Of course, 1400 B.C. was considerably before the time of Lehi, but Nibley points out that this was a common ancient practice which is supported in other records closer to Lehi's time. He explains:

This was a holdover from the times when the city and the land were a single political unit, comprising a city-state; when this was absorbed into a larger empire, the original identity was preserved, though it had lost its original political significance. The same conservatism made it possible for Socrates to be an Athenian, and nothing else, even though he came from the village of Alopeke, at some distance from the city. (Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, p. 5)

Even the Bible contributes to this testimony. True, the phrase "land of Jerusalem" does not occur anywhere in this sacred record. However, There are many examples of this language structure. The phrase "land of something" occurs 564 times in the Old Testament. While most of these are references to nations, such as "the land of Egypt" or "the land of Judah," there are also examples such as "the land of Babylon" and "the land of Tob" which appear to be identifying the surrounding territories of the named city. In particular, Jeremiah refers to "Riblah in the land of Hamath" (Jer. 52:9). Hamath is a city of Syria at the northern limits of Palestine. A very familiar example is Samaria. While the "land of" construction is not used the concept is clear. The Northern Kingdom was know, even into New Testament, times by the name of its capital city, Samaria.

While the phrase, "land of Jerusalem," is not found in the Bible, it has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A recently translated text, called Pseudo-Jeremiah, claiming to have originated at precisely the time when Lehi was fleeing Jerusalem, speaks of the Jews as "taken captive from the land of Jerusalem." (Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, [1992] pp. 57-58.)

It Would Have Been an Anachronism

Long ago Parley Pratt addressed the error of expecting Alma to have identified Bethlehem as the birth place of Jesus:

This you say, is a contradiction of his being born in Bethlehem, (a little place, six miles from Jerusalem,) but mark the local difference in the places where each was spoken. One prophet stands in the vicinity where the thing was fulfilled, and points out the exact location, (Bethlehem.) The other stands on the other side of the globe, from Jerusalem, and addresses a people who knew but little concerning the localities of the various towns and villages of Judea. The prophet speaks in general terms concerning a thing which should transpire in the land of Jerusalem, as they had a general idea of the great capitol city and country, from whence they sprang, rather than a distinct idea of all its villages. This is in perfect accordance with all the circumstances under which they wrote, and a great proof in favour of the Book of Mormon; because an imposter, in forging a book, would have said Bethlehem; for every school boy knows, that Bethlehem is the place where the Lord was born. (Parley P. Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled, [1838] pp. 17-18.)

To this author, the argument presented here by Elder Pratt transcends all other evidence for the correctness of Alma's identification of Jesus' birthplace. Not only does Alma's use appropriate phasing but given his time and place, his is the only acceptable phrasing. Anyone in 1830 writing these words would surely have identified Bethlehem as the birth place of Christ — "Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem." But this was not written in 1830, and it was not written to a culture who knew of Bethlehem. Jerusalem was a land far away — it was the name of the land of their forefathers origin. Alma was speaking nearly 500 years after those forefathers left that land. Nephi makes the point that he did not teach his people the geography of his former home. To these people, the name Bethlehem would have had no meaning. Christ would be born "at Jerusalem which [was] the land of [their] forefathers." Bethlehem would have been an anachronism — exactly what a modern writer who was making up this story would have said.

Thus, this most frequent criticism of the Book of Mormon proves to be another substantial witness.