Is bethel and bethlehem the same place but different
A major trading center, Bethel stood at a crossroads, with its north-south road passing through the central hill country from Hebron in the south to Shechem in the north, and its main east-west route leading from Jericho to the Mediterranean Sea. Only Jerusalem is mentioned more frequently than Bethel in the Old Testament.
Bethel sat at the boundary between the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin and eventually delineated the border between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Although Bethel was in the dry hill country, several natural springs supplied water in abundance for its residents. Originally named Luz Genesis ; Judges , the city was renamed Bethel by Jacob after the patriarch experienced a remarkable dream there.
While traveling from Beersheba to Haran to escape his brother Esau, Jacob stopped for the night in Luz. As he slept, he dreamed of a stairway or ladder that stretched up from earth to heaven. The angels of God were climbing up and down the ladder as God stood at the top Genesis — The Lord spoke and revealed Himself to Jacob as the God of his fathers. Then Jacob set up a sacred pillar, named the place Bethel verses 18—19 , and consecrated the site as a place to worship God verse The ark of the covenant was kept at Bethel for a time, and the people often went there to seek God during times of trouble Judges — During the time of the divided kingdoms, King Jeroboam of Israel established two temples for the northern kingdom, one at Bethel and the other at Dan.
Town names move. Perhaps so in this case. Nor can certain proof be advanced that Beitin-Bethel etymologically. There is a small valley instead of a mountain between Beitin and et-Tell although there is a small hill just northwest of et-Tell. The Bible nowhere says Bethel was burned by Joshua. There is no archaeological evidence identifying Beitin as Bethel.
Chronology of the site accords with high dating. If Beitin is not Bethel, what city is Bethel? First, we must point out that Bireh is not Beeroth. In attempting to identify Bireh, Robinson who was followed by Ritter and many others made what appears to be a major misinterpretation of Eusebius in saying This road was the present camel-path from Jerusalem to Ramleh passing near el-Jib The traveler on emerging from the hills into the plains around el-Jib sees el-Bireh on his right after a little more than two hours from Jerusalem.
Beeroth sub colle Gabaon. It is possible to see Bireh from there since it is so prominent, but that is not what Eusebius meant. He plainly says Beeroth is at the seventh mile-marker, and on the road to Nicopolis. It is obvious from both Eusebius and Jerome that Beeroth was on the road to Nicopolis. For Robinson to so distort Eusebius-Jerome in his identification of Beeroth,81 equating it with Bireh, raises more doubt as to the correctness of his identification of other important sites in the tribal area of Benjamin.
Yes, but only one within three miles in any direction. What is it? Since no excavating has been done, and there has been no archaeological survey of the area undertaken, at this time we cannot use archaeology in making an identification.
The geographical reasons for selecting Bireh as the site of Bethel are numerous. Perhaps this is because it is the natural crossroads town for the whole area. One other feature, important to a Canaanite city, is a good spring. And there is a copious spring in the south part of the town.
The topography of the area around Ras et-Tahuneh the highest point in Ramallah-Bireh is such that it has a horizontal hourglass effect. That is, there is a plain on the north and another on the south. But deep valleys run to the east and west, forcing travelers to pass close by this high point. During the Crusades, Bireh, controlled by the Knights Templar, was called La Grande Mahomerie and was obviously a main fortress and a place of pilgrimage.
It seems significant that the Crusaders chose this spot to defend rather than Beitin. It is the place on the Jerusalem-Nablus road to effect a roadblock. The Israelis made good use of this fact in the Six-Day War when they captured this spot early in the fighting. Jeroboam may have also made good use of it in putting a temple there! The topography seems correct. Most important is the fact that a large mountain et-Tawil lies between Bireh and this ruin.
The valley descends into Wadi Suweinit, which in turn goes on down to Jericho. Surface pottery on the tell is Roman. But just off the tell and to the north, the surface is covered with early Iron pottery. A spring is on the south side of the tell. Of course, this can be nothing more than a suggested location. The identification of Ai is primarily linked with correct identification of Bethel. Concluding remarks: A new location for Bethel and Ai is an exciting prospect.
It has many implications for other city locations in the tribal area of Benjamin. If our new proposal is accepted as correct and excavations are carried on, it may also open some new possibilities for Palestinian dating and better correlations with other Near Eastern chronology. Not the least of these may be some help on the date of the Conquest. We close this investigation with the words of Melvin Grove Kyle, to whose memory The Excavation of Bethel was dedicated: The three important requisites of testimony in a court are the place, the person, the time.
However important the events narrated, the narrative does not constitute evidence unless the place can be given. If the place can be given, then there is some evidence It is important carefully to note this order here, for by a reversal of the order and a consequent minimizing of the importance of geography and topography in Biblical discussions and the thrusting of chronology into the first place, the results of archaeological identifications have been belittled and the importance of critical difficulties about petty apparent discrepancies in dates greatly magnified.
Geography is first in importance in history as in evidence in court. So with the identification of the places in the Bible history; instead of being shoved aside, as of the first importance, without some more or less definite idea of which, nothing else is important at all. Livingston conducted excavations at Khirbet Nisya from He has identified Khirbet Nisya as Joshua's Ai, based partly on the groundbreaking research found in this article.
This article was first published in the Westminster Theological Journal, Posted with permission. Endnotes: 1. Kelso, Cambridge, Hereafter referred to as Bethel. The writer became interested in this problem while studying at the American Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem in He is indebted to the faculty and staff for the unsparing help received in January, , while he was researching in the area north of Jerusalem.
Bethel, p. Journal of Biblical Literature, 87, 3 Sept. The break between this and the following stratum is also more complete than in any other case except between Iron II and Hellenistic…the break becomes so much greater that no bridge can be thrown across it, and we are compelled to identify it with the Israelite conquest. In reaching this obvious and inescapable conclusion, the writer abandons a position which he has held for eleven years, and adopts the low date of the Israelite conquest of central Palestine.
The views of Professor Garstang, Sir Charles Marston and others are devoid of concrete archaeological foundation. William Gage, New York, , Hereafter cited as Researches. See chapter ten of Bethel for a detailed comparison of the archaeological and biblical history. How could it be confused with Ai? Owen, Archaeology and the Bible Westwood, N. Hereafter cited as Tent Work. Joseph A. Grintz, Biblica, 42 , f. Wright, Biblical Archaeology abridged edition; Philadelphia, , p.
Callaway, op. Eusebius, Onomasticon ed. Klosterman, Leipzig, All references hereafter to this third and fourth century work of Eusebius-Jerome are from this title. The number sin parenthesis indicate the page and line at which the citation begins. Conder, Tent Work II, Early geographers, in taking biblical descriptions and seeking to locate Ai, concluded that it could Deir Dibwan, et-Tell, Taiyebah, Haiyan and other places.
All this led Robinson to conclude that no one could be sure where Ai was. Ritter, Geography, IV, , note 4. For confirmation that Albright still hold this view, see Bethel, p. Callway in his lecture at Wheaton College in reported to the writer by Dr.
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. There is no Late Bronze evidence in the region east of Bethel that I can find. He says they must be close together. Robinson gives an excellent summary of the biblical topography in Biblical Researches, I, In Joshua , Joshua stretched out his hand and spear while standing somewhere north of Ai, and the ambush west of the city was able to see him.
See also J. Geography, IV, italics ours. McGarvey, Lands of the Bible Philadelphia, , p. Cited by J. Letter of January 30, Permission to quote granted in letter of January 12, Anson Rainey, London, , p. From the Jordan valley to Bethel and north. II Kings ff. From the sea coast up to Bethel and then along the ridge road. See also G. Smith, Historical Geography , p. Bethel, on the same ridge road [as Shechem], was also a junction point for east-west traffic.
This road came from the Mediterranean up the valley of Aijalon to Bethel and then descended to Jericho, where it crossed to Transjordan and Arabia. He has made a creful study of intertestamental and Roman roads.
Aharoni, Land, p. Baly, Geography, p. The early geographers say something of this natural division. Smith Historical Geography, p. In considering the town lists of Exra ff. Ritter, Geography, IV, From a postcard of February 16, In considering etymology, it does seem intriguing that there were precisely two ruined buildings prominent when the site was resettled about years ago, after having been abandoned for a considerable time.
Robinson mentions them in Researches, I, They are a tower and a church. Evidently, these were the most prominent landmarks among the ruins. Bethel p. Albright mentions this is Bethel, p. Robinson, Physical Geography, p. Other texts are mentioned in Bethel p. Noted references are Gen.
Thomsen, ZDPV, 40, That marker is number Conder is apparently speaking of this same stone in C. Conder and H. This was before Germer Durand reported on the upper section of the stone found later and appearing in Cosmos, Revue de Science, Avril 21, The milestone has probably been assigned to the tenth mile from Jerusalem because of its situation , because if it had an inscription it would have been published, then or later.
There seems to be a little question among scholars that er-Ram is biblical Rama and the Rama of Eusebius-Jerome. To our knowledge, no sixth marker has yet been discovered. But in the text of the book itself, he makes no mention of a sixth on p.
This may be an error since P. Thomsen and others make no mention of it either and we have not been able to find it published anywhere. Note that Jerome in his commentary on Hosea says Rama is at the seventh Roman milestone! This may indicate that Rama lay somewhere between the sixth and seventh stones. Conder considers this fact in the Survey, III, Although he is quite accurate in this case, he seems considerably off in the case of Gibeah and Gabaoth Saul Gibeah?
Although he mentions Bethel several times, unfortunately he never gives the distance. Since one Roman mile equals yards, compared to an English mile of yards, 11 modern miles would equal approximately 12 Roman miles. Vincent Revue Biblique, , pp. But, he too discovered p. Thus, the 0 milestone, of necessity, must be somewhere within Jerusalem. We wonder whether distances can be measured in a straight line from town to town and be accurate?
It was on a junction of the road from Jericho joining with the eastern fork of the road from Jerusalem to Nablus. The Jerusalem road forks at Bireh, the western fork going through Gophna Jifna to the sea. See note Avi-Yonah Holy Land, p. A direct road linking the administrative and military headquarters of the province would naturally be required in these circumstances. This includes the most recent surveys of all possible cites in A low ridge with no distinct peak lies northeast of Beitin.
But et-Tell lies to the southeast of Beitin and the ridge is not actually between them at all. The importance of this fact could not be any more forcibly pointed out than Yehezkel Kaufman has done in The Religion of Israel Chicago, , pp. Only strata supposedly correlating with biblical events are presented as evidence.
No inscription of any kind identifying the site has been found. This is the case even though from the earliest to the latest excavations by Kelso , that was the constant objective of the digs. For instance, see BA, 19, 2 , The Bethel chronology p. In other words, at the two most important times when there should have been occupation for the high biblical dates, there was none. Thus, it is possible for those holding to high dates to look for another site.
One cannot be sure a city was there then. This is a long period.
Zulkree