darstec

Interestingly, in another thread I posted links to some maps of 1st century Palestine. It definitely shows a Bethlehem near Nazareth. It must be the one referenced by Aviram Oshri in your link.

Ecrasez L'infame

Thanks for this link. That's good to know. If archaeology and textual analysis both independently support a conclusion, that conclusion becomes quite strong. But I should say again this is not my idea or theory, but Robert Graves's, writing in 1947. Still, I'm sure he would have been highly gratified.

This is possibly my last chance to convince anyone before this thread descends off the bottom of the page into Forum Sheol, so here goes:

First, assume a HJ - well, let's see where it leads us. Assume also the usual pecking order of the synoptics: Matthew has seen Mark, and Luke has seen Matthew and Mark. In the following I call Jesus' mother "Mary" - it's as good a name as any.

Now, both Matthew and Luke mention "Bethlehem", but Mark does not. Where does it come from, then? One possibility is that Matthew or someone in his circle just thinks of it one day, and passes it around, and it simply catches on because it fits the prophecy in Micah. Well, if the Evangelists were that casual about inventing episodes in the life of Jesus, then we can't trust anything in the Gospels :devil3:. Besides, Micah is not so hot - an unimportant, late, prophet, misquoted, misinterpreted, and still not really descriptive of Jesus; no one would make such a major change just to fit that in. In short, "Bethlehem" wasn't invented to fit Micah, but Micah adapted to fit "Bethlehem".

So "Bethlehem" is older, has a genuine tradition, one that the circle of Matthew and Luke respect - perhaps going all the way back to Jesus? (don't ask me why in that case Mark doesn't know of it - nothing's straightforward in this game). If "Bethlehem" does go all the way back to Jesus, then which of the following is more likely?

M) Mary lives in Judaea during her pregnancy, and has Jesus in Bethlehem in Judaea. Then they go and live very near Bethlehem in Galilee. (This is basically the account in Matthew. It is also consistent with Luke 1:39-56.)
L) Mary lives in Galilee during her pregnancy, but travels south just before delivery to have Jesus in Galilee in Judaea. Then they tootle up north again. (This is basically the account in Luke.)
J) Mary lives in Galilee during her pregnancy, and has Jesus in Bethlehem in Galilee. No journey south at all. (This is consistent with John 7:42).

(L) is impossible and ludicrous. (M) and (J) are both possible, but (J) is much simpler. Therefore I conclude (J) - Jesus' family were from Galilee, he was born in Galilee, he grew up in Galilee - in short, he was Galilean.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Yes, I had noticed and read that Archaelogy magazine article in my local library (ie. Borders or Barnes & Nobles). I will simply point out that Matthew, Luke and John all have narratives with the birth city of Jesus, and all three give markers that place this Bethlehem as the one not too far from Jerusalem. The count is 3 to 0.

Matthew 2:1
Bethlehem of Judaea (3 x)
....wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Luke 2:4 -
into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem

John 7:42
Christ ..out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was

As for the argument that Mark didn't know of Bethlehem, you may notice that he doesn't give a birth narrative. One could just as well say he didn't know Jesus was born (likely our skeptics will run with that idea).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Ecrasez L'infame

Well, by my understanding John 7:42 is saying Jesus did NOT come from David's city - that's why some there doubted he was the Messiah. The count is 2 to 1.

Yes, but the question is why didn't Mark give the birth narrative? he preceded Mat & L... Either (a) he just wasn't interested (hmm - if he had known Jesus was born in David's city, I think he would have been), or (b) the whole story was made up after gMark but before the other synoptics, or (c) Mat & L have a source Mark didn't know about.

I hypothesise (c), that's all; and I deduce (J) in my previous post. If Jesus was born in a place called Bethlehem at all, it makes more sense to say it was the Galilean one.