Talk:Bethlehem

I would like to ask for the help of an authorized editor to change the references to the Amarna correspondence as they are demonstrably based on wishful thinking. This is not crack-pottery or original research, but properly sourced below and also evident to anybody who can read some cuneiform.

Here's how the Britannica puts it: "An ancient settlement, it is possibly mentioned in the Amarna Letters (14th-century-bce diplomatic documents found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt), but the reading there is uncertain." - we could also just copy this statement.

The basis of the often repeated statement that Bethlehem is mentioned in the Amarna correspondence goes back to W. F. Albright. The original tablet, EA 290 (Amarna letter 290), does, however, not say bit-Lahmi, but bit-nin-urta (or nin-ib, in an alternative reading). Albright went through some hair-raising acrobatics to apply a different reading to get the desired result.

Here is how Nicolas Blincoe (Bethlehem, biography of a town) describes the genesis of this interpretation (end of chapter 1, I do not see page numbers):

"Albright was quick to pick up on Schroeder's claim to have found the first mention of Bethlehem. But he offered a different and far simpler translation. He argued that the cuneiform symbol Beit-Ninurta could be read Beit-Lahmu because "Lahmu" was an alternative for Ninurta among the Sumerians. No one has ever suggested this, and as Lahmu is only ever mentioned in conjunction with his twin sister, Lahamu, the connection is highly dubious. In truth, Albright seems to have misunderstood Schroeder's reading, which had only been published in German. Albright recanted in 1968, when he identified Beit-Ninurta with Beit Horon, yet his fanciful interpretation of the Abdi-Heba letter is still cited in guidebooks and archaeological studies to date Bethlehem."

BTB, Wikipedia's own article on the letter has bit-Ninurta, as it should: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letter_EA_290, line 15

How about this as a compromise then: "Bethlehem has been suggested as a reading for the place-name bīt-ninurta in one of the Amarna letters (EA 290), but this reading is very uncertain and has been rejected by other scholars."

Likewise in the section under Canaanite, the name Bit-Lachmi should be replaced by the original Bit-ninurta with a reference that this name has been interpreted by at least two scholars as Bethlehem, but that said reading is uncertain and has met with significant objections.

Hope an editor sees this, makes it through my wall of text and is willing to work on it. Please contact me on my contact page if I can help. Thanks! MikuChan39 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

please change "The earliest-known mention of Bethlehem is in the Amarna correspondence of ancient Egypt, dated to 1350–1330 BCE, when the town was inhabited by the Canaanites." to "A possible first mention of Bethlehem occurs in the Amarna correspondence of ancient Egypt, dated to 1350–1330 BCE, although that reading is uncertain". and "The earliest mention of Bethlehem as a place appears in the Amarna correspondence (c. 1400 BCE), in which it is referred to as Bit-Laḫmi, a name for which the origins remain unknown." (under Etymology) to "Amarna letter EA290 (wiki-link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letter_EA_290) makes reference to a town bīt-ninurta which has been read as Bit-Lachmi by scholar W. F. Albright [ref.] following a proposal by Otto Schroeder in 1815 and making it a potential first historical reference to Bethlehem. This reading is, however, uncertain and has met with objections [Nicolas Blincoe, Bethlehem, biography of a town, end of chapter 1]"

Direct link to Blincoe: https://books.google.com/books?id=wJOYDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT51&lpg=PT51&dq=Albright+was+quick+to+pick+up+on+Schroeder%27s+claim+to+have+found+the+first+mention+of+Bethlehem.+But+he+offered+a+different+and+far+simpler+translation.+He+argued+that+the+cuneiform&source=bl&ots=oQbBCZTWGN&sig=ACfU3U3UIje8VOqbXc1m5qLyjTvsbhVLlg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwioo_fE7YKFAxXZg4kEHc8yDt4Q6AF6BAgrEAM#v=onepage&q=Albright%20was%20quick%20to%20pick%20up%20on%20Schroeder's%20claim%20to%20have%20found%20the%20first%20mention%20of%20Bethlehem.%20But%20he%20offered%20a%20different%20and%20far%20simpler%20translation.%20He%20argued%20that%20the%20cuneiform&f=false

I have no interest in denigrating the history of any particular religion or ethnicity - simply came to this from the cuneiform side when a student mentioned the Amarna reference to me and I looked at the tablet in question to quickly realize that this is a common story which is uncritically repeated a hundred years after even though the evidence really does not bear it out, in my view - I am horrified that this is not at least qualified somewhat in the Wikipedia article the way e.g. the Britannica does it. Having raised this issue twice in the comments now (see Archive 2), I thought I'd try an EPER. Hope somebody can take a look and happy to collaborate if I can. MikuChan39 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1st sentence had as "sources" two totally unrelated texts, dealing with preps for Millennium Year (pre-2000 real building work & "Potemkin villages") and use of Hebrew and Arabic in "Small Triangle" vs. West Bank. Not

• B. in Arabic, Hebrew
• distance from Jerusalem (how to be measured? Not an empty question, the two touch each other.)
• current population
• admin. status of B. city.

Who's kidding whom?

Here they are if you doubt it.

Amara, 1999, p. 18 Archived May 29, 2021, at the Wayback Machine.

Brynen, 2000, p. 202 Archived May 29, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Arminden (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why does Bethlehem have the Hebrew name in its opening sentence, while Jaffa does not have the Arabic name in its own? What is the relevant guideline on this issue? And how can consistency be maintained without prejudice relating to the names of Palestinian cities? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am requesting the removal of the following line from the article: "Yasser Arafat, then the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), unilaterally replaced the predominantly Christian city council with a leadership that was largely Muslim."

The reason for this request is that the statement is based on poor source, and it does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability standards. The source is an article in an Israeli right-wing website ynetnews, the article was also edited by WorldNetDaily, an American far-right website that is notorious for spreading far-right conspiracy theories like the "Obama wasn't born in the US" conspiracy. I suggest either removing the statement or finding a more reliable source to substantiate the claim. Thank you. Omar Jabarin (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, many people wonder if Bethlehem is in Israel or Palestine, that’s why I liked the previous opening sentence - “Bethlehem is a city in the West Bank, in the State of Palestine…”, but I see that it has recently been changed to “…is a city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank”, which of course is factually correct, but in my opinion saying first thing that it is Israeli-occupied makes it seem like it is Israeli, more so than Palestinian. What about removing the “Israeli” from the first line, only to make it clear it is Palestinian, and leaving the part about Israeli occupation where it is already mentioned, further down? Thank you. 2A00:A041:3B9A:AC00:11E2:7CD6:40A5:1A3C (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

'לחם' in any context does not mean food.

'בית לחם' can only mean 'house of bread'.

I wanted to edit it, but since it is closed I can not, so here I am. Hwndqkjep (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply