Scientists share exactly where 'Jesus was born' as they claim it's unlikely it was in Bethlehem

Scientists and archaeologists have revealed where Jesus was born - and they say it's unlikely it was Bethlehem.

With Christmas eve and the big day quickly approaching, you might be preparing for Midnight Mass or some carolling around the Christmas tree as we commemorate the story of Jesus' birth.

But there are some historical inaccuracies in our modern adaptations of nativity plays and carols as experts say, while Jesus was definitely born on Christmas Day, it's unlikely little donkey trekked the distance to Bethlehem.

The shepherds and the manger were probably added to the story later on (Getty)

In fact, the shepherds, three wise men and the manager were probably introduced into the story later on as experts say Christians tied Jesus' story into an ancient Jewish prophecy.

And now some historians and archaeologists also believe the son of God wasn't born in Bethlehem but in another town some 68 miles (175km) in the small town of Nazareth - or in another Bethlehem just four miles (7km) away from Mary and David's hometown.

Scientists and scholars say the best evidence that Bethlehem of Judea is Jesus' real birthplace actually comes from the Bible, particularly as any physical evidence from 2,000 years ago is hard to come by.

Dr Clyde Billington, a biblical scholar and executive director of the Institute for Biblical Archaeology, said to The Daily Mail: "Bethlehem in Judea is mentioned in Matthew, Luke, and John as the birthplace of Christ."

A flaw in this is that these sources are obviously quite old, with the Gospel of Matthew believed to have been written around 80 AD - some 50 years after Jesus died.

Christians often make the pilgrimage to Bethlehem (Getty)

Still, the Bible is as close as we're ever going to get when mapping out Jesus' life and the scholar says he is 'convinced' Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.

Professor Helen Bond, an expert on Christian history at the University of Edinburgh, also pointed out the earliest gospel, Mark, 'says nothing' about Jesus' birth and the apostle, Paul, who knew Jesus' brothers, also makes no mention of Bethlehem.

Archaeologists have also determined the location makes sense, having found evidence that Bethlehem of Judea existed and dates to Jesus' time.

Researchers made a major breakthrough in 1969 as they uncovered pieces of pottery dating back to the Iron Age around 1000 to 586 BC in Bethlehem.

Another excavation carried out by Dr Joan Taylor of King's College London and Dr Shimon Gibson of the University of North Carolina and Charlotte near the Church of Nativity in 2016, also made some interesting discoveries as they found pots and artefacts that 'without a doubt' dated to Jesus' time.

The theory is that Mary wouldn't have trekked for miles to give birth (Getty)

But some such as Aviram Oshri, an archaeologist from the Israel Antiquities Authority, who spent more than 10 years excavating an ancient site, believes Jesus was born in a small village called Bethlehem of Galilee, more than 60 miles (100km) from Bethlehem of Judea and nearer to Nazareth.

This is because he believes a heavily pregnant Mary wouldn't have travelled the 175km journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Judea.

That, and during his excavation, he found a huge Byzantine-era church and a building that could've been a guest house or inn - which is close to the Biblical story we're all familiar with.

Yet, others say Oshri's theory is lacking evidence as Dr Billington says there is not a 'single ancient source' that would place Jesus' birth in that town.

Others say it's most likely Jesus was born in Nazareth, as we know from Gospels that Mary and Joseph lived in a village there and that's where Jesus grew up.

Although Nazareth had no prophetic claim, the village is mentioned consistently throughout the Bible.