Archaeologist Believes Jesus Was Born in a Different Bethlehem
By _Jeff Schapiro_ (http://www.christianpost.com/author/jeff-schapiro/) ,
Christian Post Reporter
December 27, 2012|5:04 pm
The Bible says the place of Jesus Christ's birth was the town of Bethlehem
of Judea, but one archaeologist says the Christian savior was more likely
born in a different Bethlehem that is farther from Jerusalem.
Aviram Oshri, an archaeologist with the _Israel_
(http://www.christianpost.com/topics/israel/) Antiquities Authority (IAA),
told NPR that he has
conducted extensive excavations in Bethlehem of the Galilee, and has found
artifacts there which suggest that the traditionally held view of where Jesus
was born may be incorrect.
"I think the genuine site of the nativity is here rather than in the other
Bethlehem near Jerusalem," said Oshri.
In Bethlehem of the Galilee, Oshri says he has discovered stone vessels
that were used by Jews during the same time period that Jesus lived.
Excavators also discovered evidence of what was once a large, ornate church –
Oshri
says the church suggests that Christians also once believed the site to be
the place of Christ's birth – as well as parts of a wall that may have been
built by emperor Justinian to protect the village.
"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
seven kilometers rather than the other Bethlehem which is 150 kilometers,"
he said, according to NPR.
When asked how he thinks Christians today would respond to being told that
the traditional birth site is incorrect, Oshri said his findings will not
ultimately have any influence and the traditional site will remain important
to believers.
Oshri previously presented his theory about Jesus's alternative birth site
in an archaeology magazine article from 2005, in which he said the
traditional birth site has "a complete absence of information from the
Herodian
period" when Jesus lived.
But an article written by Jerome Murphy-O'Conner for Biblical Archaeology
Review in 2011 says that claim isn't true. The cave beneath the Church of
the Nativity in Bethlehem of Judea, Murphy-O'Conner states, was properly
identified by apologist Justin Martyr in the second century A.D. as the place
of Jesus' birth. Martyr probably learned about the cave from local
traditions that had been passed down from the time of Jesus' birth.
"It is difficult to imagine that the Bethlehemites invented the cave
tradition, particularly because, as there is reason to suspect, the cave was
not
always accessible to Christians in the days of Justin and Origen," wrote
Murphy-O'Conner. Jerome, another church father, wrote that the cave had once
been turned into a pagan shrine, and although Christians were not likely
permitted there for a time, they still maintained that Jesus had been born
there.
Clyde E. Billington, a professor of ancient history and managing editor of
Artifax magazine, told The Christian Post via email that the current
absence of evidence in Bethlehem of Judea doesn't necessarily mean Jesus was
born
elsewhere.
"Archaeologists almost never excavate more than 10 percent of an
archaeological site. In other words, for any archaeologist to draw conclusions
based
upon a supposed absence of archaeological evidence is archaeological
malpractice,'' wrote Billington.
The Northwestern College professor also emphasized the importance of
biblical passages which lend support to the traditional site of Jesus' birth.
"The New Testament was written by people who knew Jesus and Mary, and was
written nearly 2,000 years before Oshri's theory," Billington said.
"Contrary to what Oshri has suggested, there is not one single ancient
Christian
source which places the birth of Christ anywhere other than in Bethlehem in
Judah, which is also where Micah 5:2 predicted the Jewish Messiah would be
born."
The Church of the Nativity was named to the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) list of World Heritage sites
earlier this year, and drew approximately two million tourists in 2011
alone.
In May, the IAA announced the discovery of an ancient bulla – a piece of
clay used to seal a document or object – which is the earliest evidence of
the ancient city of Bethlehem discovered thus far. The inscription on the
bulla, which is dated back to the First Temple period (approximately between
the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.), is reportedly the first place the
word "Bethlehem" has been discovered on an ancient object outside of the
Bible.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
