Bethlehem is among the most cited settlements in the Old Testament. It provides the setting for Ruth and parts of other historical books, and it finds reference at other junctures. Depending on the passage and the translation, English versions of the Bible consistently depict Bethlehem as either a city or a town. Yet both biblical and archaeological data suggest that “village” is a better choice. Cities and towns have influence beyond their borders, whereas Bethlehem is merely a dot on the map, famous only because it is the place of David’s birth. As per Dever and Laughlin, archaeological findings fail to reveal notable architecture in Israelite Bethlehem and suggest that it never contained as many as 1,000 residents. Yet because of the way Old Testament Bethlehem and Old Testament settlements were understood in the Judeo-Christian past, translators and commentators regularly reference Bethlehem as a town or a city.
This paper argues that “village” is the best way to render the Hebrew `ir when `ir refers to Bethlehem. As per the work of Childe and Woolf, pre-exilic Bethlehem better fits both modern and ancient notions of “village” than “town” or “city.” Depicting Bethlehem as a village strengthens the theological importance of Bethlehem as the place of greatness as in Micah 5:2. The insignificant village of Bethlehem parallels the insignificant origins of the great King David, and his greater descendant also born in Bethlehem, Jesus of Nazareth.