semiopen

I think also that we should define small village.

Assuming people lived there in Herod's time, it was a piece of crap place.

It should also be noted that Herod built Solomon's pools near Bethlehem. It's conceivable some people might have hung around for the water, but still one finds no evidence of habitation.

I thought that Bethlehem has some importance because it sort of supports a relationship with David's old stomping ground. As a practical matter, assuming you have a pregnant woman with you, why not walk a few clicks down the road to Jerusalem?

andrewcriddle

I don't think we have direct archaeological evidence of habitation till Constantine. However, the literary evidence suggests it was inhabited well before that.

Andrew Criddle

Chili

You do not really think that there was water in Solomon's pools do you? but that those pools point at the significance of Bethlehem where living water is required, and yes! they were David's old stomping grounds as that is where new life is found that must be nourished by other's in its infancy.

That Herod is said to have built these pools means that, first of all, he does not want to be Herodian, and second, that such water needs to be so he does not have to be what he is known for to be. It is just nature in action of which the 'seed parable' speaks loudly in favor of the seeds that fall on fertile ground as here now is projected.

It has nothing to do with water, or with blood, but about the partenocarpic engender of 'begotton' life inside the womb of man as male.

Johnny Skeptic

How do you suggest that people try to find out whether or not Jesus was probably born in Bethlehem?

sotto voce

Read carefully.

semiopen

Perhaps I missed something here but Oshri stated in what I considered to be the OP -

Where was Jesus Born?

This makes the claims of digging in the wrong place a little less plausible.

However your statement may be correct because I haven't been able to find anything that clearly states what the iron age material was.

Oddly if you search for Bethlehem Iron Age you wind up with Bethlehem PA.

Johnny Skeptic

Please be more specific.

The Bible mentions King Nebuchadnezzar. Most skeptic historians also believe that he existed, but they do not believe that he ate grass with cows as the Bible claims. It has not been odd for some ancient writers of various religious books to mention real people or places, and add false supernatural claims. It would have been much more odd if ancient writers never wrote about real people and places. Thus, if the book of Acts mentions some real people and places, that is merely secular history.

Early native American Indians did not have access to the Bible. How were they supposed to know anything about the God of the Bible, including his agenda?

mountainman

Between the lines.

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

Origen does not say how the people in the surrounding places know it is the place where Jesus was born. Bethlehem is five or six miles from Jerusalem. It is hard to believe that the surrounding places would not include everybody in Jerusalem. One would think that in 200 years, some Christians would have set up a shrine or a church there and that Origen or some other writer might mention having visited it. It seems surprising that 1) he does not describe the site, 2) he has not visited the site and 3) he does not name anybody who has visited the site.
Also, if everybody in Jerusalem knew where this site was (and how could they not) why did Helena have to discover the site 90 years later, or did she discover another site? In which case how did they discover that the site that Origen claims had been passed off in the time of Origen was not the real site.

Eusebius says practically the same thing as Origen:
He also gives no additional information than that it is shown to visitors. He also has not visited the place nor named anybody who has.

Neither Origen or Eusebius cites their source for this statement that the cave draws visitors. it sounds like something that Christians simply deduced from their belief that the birth story was true.

This can be classified as a rhetorical point rather than the reporting of an objective fact. In a piece of ancient rhetoric, which "Against Celsus" and the "demonstratio" falls under, making up evidence such as this was not prohibited, but considered the proper thing to do.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Chili

Hi Johnny, a close resemblance here is for you to try and hatch a 'parthoncarpic seed' found in a 'seedless watermelon' and see if that will work. If it does not, then you will understand what Bethlehem is all about.