December 28, 2012

Uh-oh

Filed under: Biblical archaeology — acagle @ 9:53 am

Another Bethlehem? Archaeologists Say the New One Holds Historical Significance

“O Little Town of Bethlehem” has always been sung by Christians each year as a testimony to remember the birth of Jesus, deemed by Christians to be the Savior of the World, the Lord who was born of the virgin Mary, placed in a feeding trough, and worshipped by eastern astrologers and the angels at His birth. For centuries, Christians have never doubted that Christ was born in “the city of David,” the place known as “Bethlehem”.

New evidence has surfaced from Aviram Oshri, an Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologist, that seems to suggest a new place of Jesus’ birth: while it is true that the name of the place was “Bethlehem,” it is not necessarily true that the city of Bethlehem is the place. Rather, the Bethlehem in which Jesus was born was the village of Bethlehem in Galilee rather than the city of David.

One thinks others would have noted such a discrepancy by now, but I thought I’d throw it out there anyway. ‘Tis the season and all.

1 Comment

  1. The situation is hopelessly muddled since the birth stories in Matthew and Luke manage to agree on Joseph, Mary and Jesus, and not much else. The notion that it was the Bethlehem in Galilee makes sense in the context of Luke, but not of Matthew since Matthew is at pains to make Jesus out as the Jewish Messiah, who had to be born of the house of David in the city of David. In any case, many authorities place Luke late in the first century or early in the second, which pretty much means he didn’t have any eyewitnesses to the birth.

    Comment by John Roth — December 29, 2012 @ 10:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress