History

The town called Bethlehem in English is known as Beit Lechem (בית לחם, "The House of Bread") in Hebrew and Beit Lachem (بيت لحم, "The House of Meat") in Arabic. However, it seems likely that both meanings have been retrofitted onto what was originally the House of Lachma, the Mesopotamian god of fertility. The area has been settled since 50,000 BC and there is some evidence that the town is mentioned in the Egyptian Amarna letters (1400 BC). The Old Testament Book of Ruth (c. 1150 BC) has the first certain reference to Bethlehem; it tells the story of Elimelech and Naomi, purportedly Bethlehem's first settlers. Still, Bethlehem remained a small town in the shadow of mighty Jerusalem, and according to most estimates it had some 300 to 1000 inhabitants at the time of the event that gave Bethlehem its fame, namely the birth of Jesus.

Somewhat surprisingly, aside from noting that the Nativity indeed took place there, the New Testament virtually ignores Bethlehem. And things didn't change immediately afterwards: wrecked during the Bar-Kochba revolt (132-135 AD), the Romans set up a shrine to Adonis on the site of the Nativity. Only in 326 was the first Christian church constructed, when Helen, the mother of the first Christian emperor, Constantine, visited Bethlehem. Afterwards it grew slowly but steadily, achieving its pinnacle as a strong fortified city during the Crusader era, but the Ottomans razed the fortifications and reduced Bethlehem back into the village it was 2000 years earlier.

The setback proved only temporary, and despite the turbulence of the 20th century the town has now grown to an estimated 184,000 inhabitants. On December 21, 1995, Bethlehem became one of the areas under the full control of the Palestinian Authority. In the city itself, 41% of the population is Christian, while 59% is Muslim.

Orientation

Bethlehem is located only a few kilometers south of Jerusalem, within the West Bank territory occupied by Israel, in an "Area A" zone administered by the Palestinian Authority. A long snake of a town, the main road is Manger Street, which stretches from Rachel's Tomb (and the road to Jerusalem) all the way to Manger Square, the focal point of the city, flanked by the Church of the Nativity on one side and the Mosque of Omar on other. The old town and souq, which are best navigated on foot, stretch up the hill from Manger Square.

Sights

Undoubtedly the top attraction in Bethlehem is the Church of the Nativity, a veritable citadel built on top of the cave where Jesus was allegedly born. While the core of the layout largely corresponds to Emperor Justinian's plans from 540 (the very first incarnation being destroyed in a 536 riot), the church was first heavily fortified by the Crusaders and then trashed (mostly through neglect) by Mamluk rule. An earthquake in 1834 and a fire in 1869 didn't help. Today, the structure is mostly sound but somewhat dark and gloomy in appearance, only the adjoining Franciscan Church of St Catherine (dated 1881 and the site of the yearly December 24 midnight mass broadcast around the world) being in excellent shape. The actual site, in the Grotto of the Nativity, is accessible from inside the church. (The tomb of famed theologian and Bethlehem resident St. Jerome is also in the Grotto.) Entrance to the entire complex is free, but in the high season be prepared for massive crowds and hour-long waits for entry into the Grotto.

Trailing a distant second for most visitors is Rachel's Tomb, the tomb of the matriarch Rachel, wife of Jacob and mother of Benjamin (Genesis 35:19-20). Holy to all three faiths, the Tomb has been the site of a few ugly confrontations and is currently barricaded off entirely, entry being possible only for Jews. This is not too great a loss though, as not only is the structure unimpressive, but the site's authenticity is also dubious.

Minor sights include the Milk Grotto Chapel, where Mary supposedly spilled a few drops of breast milk while feeding Jesus, turning the cavern milky white. The Mosque of Omar is in active use, so no entry unless you're Muslim, but it is probably the prettiest building in the center. The old town is also good for a stroll if you haven't seen an Arab city before. While the souq isn't a match for Jerusalem's, it's much less touristy and the sellers are less aggressive.

Present

Ever since the start of the al-Aqsa intifada Bethlehem has been more or less under siege. Terrorists have infiltrated the nearby town of Beit Jala in order to shoot at the Jewish settlement of Gilo across the valley, and the IDF's reprisals have been quite heavy-handed. On one occasion, tanks rumbled down Manger Street, (probably intentionally) wrecking most of the storefronts along the way and many of the decorations set up for Pope John Paul II's visit in 2000. The Paradise Hotel, never quite worth its name but one of Bethlehem's largest and most popular hotels just the same, was accused of harboring snipers, so it was shelled, set on fire and consequently completely gutted as punishment.

While this was exceptional, frightened by the violence elsewhere in the West Bank tourists have disappeared almost entirely and on a recent visit we had the entire Church to ourselves. Alas, this has crippled the local economy (which is almost entirely dependent on tourism), with the result that much of Manger St. is a shuttered ghost town. (Only the old city, populated by locals, remains as lively as ever.) Until peace returns the situation seems unlikely to change.

The other threat facing Bethlehem (from the Palestinian point of view) is continuous encroachment of Jewish settlements on the area, leaving Bethlehem cut off from the rest of Palestine. Half of the Bethlehem district has already been taken over, and the planned expansion of the settlement of Har Homa (Abu Ghuneim to the Arabs) will chew up another 400 acres.

Getting There

Your options are by bus, by shared taxi (Hebrew sherut, Arabic servees) or on foot. Arab bus 22 runs from East Jerusalem to Bethlehem, but the trip is unnecessarily long at 40 minutes; shared taxis from Damascus Gate will get you there in half the time for a few shekels. Hardcore pilgrims often prefer to walk (and in happier times there has been a large procession at Christmas), at a brisk pace the trip is doable in 2 hours but there are plenty of ups and downs along the way and the summer heat is fearsome.

Note that there is an Israeli military checkpoint on the road connecting the two towns. All travelers are subject to questioning and searches; as usual, Israeli cars can pass almost freely while Palestinians will be scrutinized closely. If checkpoint security is ramped up, buses and service taxis may be delayed or cancelled entirely.

References

Bethlehem 2000, Palmyra Press, 1998
Lonely Planet Israel (4th ed), 1999
Personal experience

Two weeks ago, the Daily Telegraph published the results of a study with the dramatic headline: "Britons who don't know where Jesus was born." The accompanying photo, which appears to be a still from a Nativity pageant, explains, "a quarter of Britons aged 18 and over didn't know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem."

Predictably, the article goes on to criticize the lack of Biblical literacy among Britons, particularly young people (whose scores on the survey were worse, on average, than that of their elders).

I have some issues with the survey questions, along with with the way that the Telegraph interpreted the results. For instance, given the substantial religious and ethnic diversity to be found in the U.K., it should hardly be surprising that the minutiae of the Christmas story are unknown to a significant part of the population. And it could be argued that a 73% success rate on what is actually kind of a minor detail in the Christian narrative is not too terrible a score anyway.

However, in this node there is another question I would like to ask.

So, was Jesus born in Bethlehem?

Ten percent of the respondents to the survey believed that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Let's think about this a minute: Jesus is generally remembered as "Jesus of Nazareth," not "Jesus of Bethlehem," which makes the error understandable. But whence comes the Nazareth/Bethlehem confusion?

The New Testament does indeed tell us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. However, Matthew and Luke, the only two gospels with infancy narratives, differ on how Jesus' parents got to Bethlehem, and the awkwardness created by these two passages suggests that there may be a deeper problem with the narrative as a whole.

  • Luke says that Caesar Augustus "issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." According to Luke 1:26, Jesus' parents were living in Nazareth at the time, but since Joseph was descended from King David, Jesus' parents returned to David's birthplace of Bethlehem to register for the census. After they had "done everything required by the Law of the Lord," they returned to Nazareth to raise the child there.
  • Matthew, by contrast, implies that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem when Mary conceived the child. After Jesus was born, they received a warning that the local ruler was going to slaughter all the male children in Bethlehem, so they fled to Egypt with the boy. Upon their return, they settled in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, since they were still uneasy with the political climate in Bethlehem.

Scholars have long recognized that the conflicts between these stories are very strange. First of all, the "census" that Luke talks about is not only unattested in contemporary Roman sources, it is not even attested elsewhere in the Bible: Matthew doesn't mention it, and it doesn't seem to have an impact on the rest of Luke's story either. (Similarly, Luke seems to have no knowledge of a flight into Egypt or a child massacre.)

Secondly, even if an empire-wide census did take place in the time frame that Luke suggests (a time frame which, I should add, is impossible to narrow down, since the figures he names were not contemporary with one another, and can't be reconciled with Augustus' known census records) it's utterly bizarre to imagine Joseph returning to King David's home town to register. King David lived about a thousand years before Joseph's time -- do you return to the hometown of an ancestor from the year 1007 when there's a census in whatever country that ancestor may have lived?

(Incidentally, the birth narratives are garbled in other ways too. The famous "no room at the inn"/"away in a manger" scene only occurs in Luke; in Matthew 1:24-25, it seems pretty clear that Jesus is born at home.)

What do we make of all this?

The mention of King David in Matthew's account is an important clue. It is indeed the case that King David was associated with Bethlehem in Jewish tradition: it is where his father made his home, and where David himself tended sheep in his youth. The story of David is told in 1 Samuel 16 and his kingdom is described in the book known as Second Samuel.

God promises David an eternal kingship through his descendents, represented by a ritual anointing that the Greeks called chrism. However, David's own kingdom is soon destroyed, and the promises that God made were shunted into an unknown future. The arrival of the future king -- called the Messiah in Hebrew and the Christ in Greek -- is described in prophecies throughout the Bible. Specifically, the book of Micah declares that the Messiah will come from David's hometown of Bethlehem.

The title "Christ" simply means "anointed one," and Jesus' first followers believed that he was the king that had been promised to the Jewish people a millennium earlier.

The point is this: a Bethlehemite Jesus has a much stronger claim on the messianic throne than a Nazarene Jesus. (Or at least he did for certain Jews who were steeped in the prophetic tradition.) If Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, then his messianic status would have been a no-brainer. But if that were true, then why would the evangelists mention Nazareth at all? Wouldn't Bethlehem be the only town that mattered to their stories?

Odds are pretty good that Jesus was actually from Nazareth, since both of the Biblical birth narratives admit to his Nazarene background with some embarrassment. Matthew and Luke each use a plot twist -- a different plot twist, mind -- to move the Holy Family back and forth between Bethlehem and Nazareth. It seems they are trying to explain two separate data points: first, that Jesus was universally known as "Jesus of Nazareth," and second, that Jesus was the Christ, descended from King David. Since the ancient prophecies placed his birth in Bethlehem, then the stories had to go through contortions to move his pregnant mother to Bethlehem.

So perhaps the Daily Telegraph shouldn't be so smug about the fact that 10% of the survey respondents wrote a technically wrong answer on their answer sheets. Those survey respondents had "Nazareth" stuck in their minds, and that is for a good reason: it was known in ancient times as Jesus' hometown. Perhaps because Jesus was actually born there.

Further Reading:

  • Normally I use the NRSV for my Biblical translations, but today I used the NIV.
  • The Daily Telegraph's article about the survey is here.
  • Mark Goodacre, a well-known Biblical scholar, critiques the survey in his blog here.
  • The best layman's introduction to the conflicts between the birth narratives in the gospels is in Bart Ehrman's excellent textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, published by the Oxford University Press. This book comes highly recommended if you're interested in the New Testament more generally.

Beth"le*hem (?), n. [Heb. bth-lekhem house of food; bth house + lekhem food, lakham to eat. Formerly the name of a hospital for the insane, in London, which had been the priory of St. Mary of Bethlehem. Cf. Bedlam.]

1.

A hospital for lunatics; -- corrupted into bedlam.

2. Arch.

In the Ethiopic church, a small building attached to a church edifice, in which the bread for the eucharist is made.

Audsley.

 

© Webster 1913.

Y'know, if you log in, you can write something here, or contact authors directly on the site. Create a New User if you don't already have an account.