sotto voce

Is there anything but circularity on offer?

Iskander

??????????????

andrewcriddle

One problem when trying to determine periods of occupancy in a currently occupied site like Bethlehem is that negative archaeological evidence may prove too much.

IIUC there is no really solid archaeological evidence of occupation of Bethlehem in late Antiquity before the time of Constantine. However it does seem likely that there was a settlement there well before that. EG Origen Contra Celsum This implies that by 250 CE at the latest, and probably substantially earlier, there was some sort of settlement at Bethlehem despite the paucity of archaeological evidence. If we accept this, then such settlement could well go back to before the time of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Iskander

The paucity of archaeological evidence proves nothing at all.

Chili

Nice, the significance of Beth-le-hem is the manger in evidence of Na-za-reth which is that big little city of God inside the soul of Joseph where Mary was from, and so now it can be said that Jospeh was home alone in contemplation of his journey towards understanding that was in total abandment of his faculty of reason when to him alone, "a timely uttering brought these thoughts relief" when Christ was born to him.

More significant is the manger there, and the swaddling clothes in evidence of anticipation to which he was driven by the prayer of his own heart that echoed in the hollows of his mind like a song of jubilee to the point that it had his own [intuit] strongholds scatter to yield his deserted world wherein so like a thief in the night the child was born within.

So the 'shepherd scatter' is equal to his 'eidolons-on-the-run' (strongholds) in evidence that Nazareth was real or Bethlehem could no longer be the house of bread, and so the Son of Man in Matthew was a failed regeneration effort as if the child was 'from his mother's womb untimely ripped,' and like duffy Macjoseph back to Egypt he goes instead of on towards Jerusalem-on-high.

More to the point here is that "out of Egypt I have called my son" who just paid a visit to Nazareth so it can be said "he shall be called a Nazorean," which here now means that Nazareth is not to be found on earth or Bethany could not be the donkey that 'She rode upon' to get him there, (so sweet!)

Note that Matthew's 'Son of Man' was without shepherds-on-the-run and so was not first cause (incipient) from intuit determination via Gabriel as in Luke, but was just a faint hope effort of a dream come true the mind of Joseph who had heard about Nazareth, and wanted to see how real it was so he, too, "could be king hereafter."

A very fitting line here is: "We have scorched the snake, not killed it./ She'll close and be herself, whilst our poor malice/ Remains in danger of her former tooth" (III.ii.13-19) just because the shepherds could not look in to see and understand in Matthew. Poor guy.

The point here then is that to look for a physical evidence of Nazareth is to misread the lines so we might be-lief and are hostile because we do not believe.

DCHindley

In light of the fact that various books of Jewish scripture speak of a Bethlehem in the lot of the tribe of Judah, I don't think anyone would be going out on a limb to say that at the time of their final editing, the authors believed that there was a Bethlehem in Judah. There will be someone here (not you, of course) who will say that this only proves that Jewish scripture was invented after 250 CE. I would simply say that the village/town that has been identified as Bethlehem by Christian writers, which was not established until at least the mid 3rd century, was not the same Bethlehem mentioned in Jewish scripture.

RSV Genesis 35:19 So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem),

Judges 17:7 Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite; and he sojourned there.

Ruth 1:1 In the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons.

Ruth 4:11 Then all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you prosper in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem;

1 Samuel 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.

Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

The OTHER Bethlehem is in the Galilee:

Joshua 19:10-16 10 The third lot came up for the tribe of Zebulun, according to its families. And the territory of its inheritance reached as far as Sarid;
11 then its boundary goes up westward, and on to Mareal, and touches Dabbesheth, then the brook which is east of Jokneam;
12 from Sarid it goes in the other direction eastward toward the sunrise to the boundary of Chislothtabor; thence it goes to Daberath, then up to Japhia;
13 from there it passes along on the east toward the sunrise to Gathhepher, to Ethkazin, and going on to Rimmon it bends toward Neah;
14 then on the north the boundary turns about to Hannathon, and it ends at the valley of Iphtahel;
15 and Kattath, Nahalal, Shimron, Idalah, and Bethlehem -- twelve cities with their villages.
16 This is the inheritance of the tribe of Zebulun, according to its families -- these cities with their villages.

DCH

mountainman

It's also called conditioning - many sang related Christimas carols about Bethlehem and its star when they were young and impressionable. Most stuff that intelligent, civilised, educated, respectable, responsible, even sophisticated people, believe about the so-called history of chistian origins is a mixture of faith and hegemonic conditioning. Evidence is in the backseat, it's certainly not driving Biblical Scholars.

outhouse

as stated there was. inhabited is up for debate.

these small towns during this time produce very little evidence so I personally dont rule it out that there was a small village there on top of the old site.

like Nazereth, there would be no reason to use this dirty little back water village as it would be a embarrassment more then anything.

If jesus was born in bethlehem it would have been in Galilee not the one in judea

braces_for_impact

Why do millions of Mormons, intelligent, civilised, educated, respectable, responsible, even sophisticated people, believe that Jesus came and visited the Native Americans 2000 years ago, and will return in triumph and glory to found his kingdom in...Missouri?

mountainman

Faith, conditioning and PR. Certainly not evidence.