Dig Finds Evidence Of Another Bethlehem

[7daysadventist]

I just stumbled upon this article.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/25/168010065/dig-finds-evidence-of-pre-jesus-bethlehem

Thousands of Christian pilgrims streamed into Bethlehem Monday night to celebrate the birth of Jesus. It's the major event of the year in that West Bank town. But Israeli archaeologists now say there is strong evidence that Christ was born in a different Bethlehem, a small village in the Galilee.

About 100 miles north of where the pilgrims gathered, shepherds still guide their flocks through green unspoiled hills, and few give notice to the tucked-away village with the odd sounding name: Bethlehem of the Galilee. But archaeologists who have excavated there say there is ample evidence that this Bethlehem is the Bethlehem of Christ's birth.

"I think the genuine site of the nativity is here rather then in the other Bethlehem near Jerusalem," says Aviram Oshri, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority which has excavated here extensively. He stands on the side of a road that now cuts through the entrance to the village. It was the construction of this road that led to the discovery of the first evidence that Bethlehem of the Galilee may have had a special place in history.

"It was inhabited by Jews. I know it was Jews because we found here remnants of an industry of stone vessels, and it was used only by Jews and only in the period of Jesus," Oshri says.

He also found artifacts which showed that a few centuries later the community had become Christians and had built a large and ornate church. He says there is significant evidence that in early Christianity this Bethlehem was celebrated as the birthplace of Christ. The emperor Justinian boasted of building a fortification wall around the village to protect it. The ruins of that wall, says Oshri, still circle parts of the Galilee village today.

He thinks many early scholars would have concluded that this Bethlehem was the birthplace of Christ.

"It makes much more sense that Mary rode on a donkey, while she was at the end of the pregnancy, from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Galilee which is only 7 kilometers rather then the other Bethlehem which is 150 kilometers," Oshri says.

He adds there is evidence the other Bethlehem in the West Bank, or what Israelis call Judea, was not even inhabited in the first century.

Paula Fredriksen, an American scholar of the historical Jesus, says that early Christianity only started to pay attention to the Judean Bethlehem in the fourth century, when the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

According to the Old Testament, Judean Bethlehem was the City of David where the future messiah would be born. Fredriksen says that it would make sense for early Christianity to focus on that Bethlehem

"The Bethlehem that's the only Bethlehem that matters for the tradition is David's Bethlehem," Fredriksen says. "And David's Bethlehem quite specifically is in Judea."

Oshri draws similar conclusions. He says that for devout Christians, the story of Jesus and his birth is inextricably linked to the internationally known city of Bethlehem.

How does Oshri think Christians would react to finding out that Bethlehem that they thought about is wrong?

"I don't think it will have any influence," he says. "The tradition is one thing. People will go on believing. And I can understand it."

[LynnDel]

That is an interesting article. However, I am one of those who believes the Bible is correct when it says:

Matthew 2:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

However, Strong's (if I dare use that more recently maligned reference tool) defines Judea this way:

1) in a narrower sense, to the southern portion of Palestine lying on this side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, to distinguish it from Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Idumaea

2) in a broader sense, referring to all Palestine

So if one were looking at the second definition, it could be either of the two Bethlehems. However, to me the final answer is in the additional descriptor of the town where Jesus was born:

Luke 2:11

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

According to the Bible, which Bethlehem would be the city of David?

[doug yowell]

2000 years from now archeologists will uncover evidence that there was another city named Riverside located in the eastern portion of the United States. This may lead certain SDA skeptics to conclude that La Sierra University may not have been actually located in southern California during the 1900's.

[BobRyan]

Bethlehem Ephratah is in the south near Jerusalem. This is the one that Micah 5:2 speaks of - and is quoted in the gospels as being the Bethlehem where Christ was born.

in Christ,

Bob

[Aliensanctuary]

Bayth Lechem, House of Bread, might not be a unique place name in that nation during that era.

[7daysadventist]

Doug, I like the way you think. This is my kinda twisted make-U-think humor too. LOL

[doug yowell]

Doug, I like the way you think. This is my kinda twisted make-U-think humor too. LOL

Well, most people viewing this thread thought I wasn't thinking.Glad you weren't offended.Perhaps we're related?

[Guest]

I'm convinced we need to leave a time capsule. So they'll know where La Sierra University really was. _ :)