They have.
But there are problems with "Bethlehem", too. Not that they want to hear it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
But there are problems with "Bethlehem", too. Not that they want to hear it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
Quote:Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE 7 and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.
Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority wrote in Archeology magazine:
" 'Menorah,' the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), describes Bethlehem as an 'ancient site' with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus.
