Nazareth

[trencacloscas]

http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm

Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death, and questions long debated in scholarly circles are now coming to the forefront. Armed with ancient sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the papyrus books of Nag Hammadi, and the long overlooked writings from the early church, modern scholars and theologians are reconstructing the life and times of Jesus, and what they are finding is very different from the life and teachings we have been "led to believe."

What we do know is that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem'. There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

So, there was no Nazareth after all? Probably no Jesus also...

And Christians still believe?

[Tilia]

Great

37 lines, not one single answer to the topic, just religious contempt and hatred. And this guy asks to "direct an admonition"????????

This is a good example of Christians that feel "insulted" just because an inconvenient issue for them pops up. So, the way for not discussing it, is this kind of reaction.

Is there evidence for that? I mean, one might suppose that the above post is a way of not discussing an inconvenient issue that popped up in the second post in the thread, but one could not prove it, so one could not allege it.

[trencacloscas]

It wouldn't the first time I see a conversation poisoned by a bigot.
I was just stating a legitimate question on data like this:

- Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

- The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

- St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. His epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

- No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.


Anyway, on this particular objection:

Archaelogists have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty-four 'courses,' or families, of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth. That shows that this tiny village must have been there at the time.

McRay quotes it from Jack Finegan's book, but doesn't give many hints. Well, now this surprises me a little. I thought those plans of the supposed excavated village of the sixties, along with Bagatti's and Pfann's, were totally discredited by now. I presume these are old news. J.D. Crossan in "The Historical Jesus" points that the evidence is consistent with that site being used as a single family farm over many centuries, not a village. And certainly not clearly identifiable with the biblical Nazareth. But, hey, that's what a forum is made for, to debate and exchange information.

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."

Certainly not, since the fragment of dark gray marble was dated from the late 3rd or early 4th century. It is true that it bears the first mention in a non Christian text, but at least two hundred years in time, and presumed more likely a late Jew settlement. And then contradictions arise... I found these detail about Origen, the third century Church Father who knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth, yet had no clear idea where it was even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the supposed town of Nazareth.

[AlAyeti]

"It wouldn't the first time I see a conversation poisoned by a bigot.
I was just stating a legitimate question on data like this:"

Caiaphas and Pilate were once argued as never existing. With every turn of the archaeologists spade, the believer in Jesus has less to fear from bigots. .

Nazareth is posted as another attempt at trying to insult Christians.

(Jesus and the disciples for example, never heard the word "Christian" while spending their missionary work together. Why not mention that? Chrsitian is not what they were so why the title now?)

Nazareth has been argued for a long time. Why interject it as a fresh subject to post?

I would say that anti-Christian bigotry is at work.

[ST88]

Nazareth is posted as another attempt at trying to insult Christians.

(Jesus and the disciples for example, never heard the word "Christian" while spending their missionary work together. Why not mention that? Chrsitian is not what they were so why the title now?)

Nazareth has been argued for a long time. Why interject it as a fresh subject to post?

I would say that anti-Christian bigotry is at work.

As to the legitimacy of the question at hand, I don't think it's out of line to question the existence of Nazareth. In whatever spirit it may have been asked, it's a very relevant question. To my knowledge this subject has not been dealt with before on these forums, so it's a fair game subject. Not everyone feels as old hat about it as you might, so let them do their own research and discuss it. It's not anti-Christian to research archaeology.

[QED]

Nazareth has been argued for a long time. Why interject it as a fresh subject to post?

Why? Well I, for one, had never heard the argument before reading this so it wasn't a complete waste of bits.

I would say that anti-Christian bigotry is at work.

What's the problem? If there's a reasonable answer that you are comfortable with then the question is harmless.

[Lotan]

So, there was no Nazareth after all? Probably no Jesus also...

On the contrary, the tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth suggests that he was an historical character. Having reviewed the arguments regarding the various meanings of the term nazareth, I'll admit that there is no strong agreement on any particular interpretation. However there is a lot of evidence that Jesus was from Galilee.If Jesus was merely a fiction, it would have been much easier to simply put him in Bethlehem in the first place and save 'Matthew' and 'Luke' the trouble of inventing birth narratives.

[trencacloscas]

Don't quite get your point, Lotan... What evidence are you referring to?

[McCulloch]

Don't quite get your point, Lotan... What evidence are you referring to?

Beginning with Mark, the biographers of Jesus had him living in Galilee. Perhaps this was because he existed and was from Galilee. Or it could be that one early proto-christian messianic group originated in Galilee. From that foundation, Matthew and Luke found themselves in a conundrum. The Jesus they got from Mark was resident in Galilee and the Messiah they interpreted from prophesy was born in Bethlehem. The solutions, apparently arrived at independently by Matthew and Luke, were the birth narratives. Too bad they did not confer together to get their stories straight. Other than the birthplace being in Bethlehem, and the names of Jesus parents there is virtually nothing in these birth narratives corresponds with the other.
Apart from christian sources, I do not believe that there is any evidence of Jesus being in Galilee. But there does seem to be reasonable agreement from the christian sources that he did live there. This must be what Lotan is calling a lot of evidence.

[Lotan]

This must be what Lotan is calling a lot of evidence.

Hi McCulloch

That's a fair assessment. It would have been a lot easier for the evangelists to create a Jesus (heck, why didn't they just call him "Immanuel"?) that was born in Judea. The fact that they didn't is considered by some to be evidence for the historicity of the tradition that Jesus came from Galilee. There are plenty of verses in the synoptic gospels that support this idea, including the bit about Jesus not being able to perform miracles in his own home town, and his mother thinking that he's gone crazy, which doesn't make much sense if you also believe the birth narratives in 'Luke'and 'Matthew'.
Whether Jesus was actually born in Nazareth or not isn't IMHO nearly as big a deal as the stories invented to place his birth in Bethlehem. These are, as trencaclosas said, "Another Christian hoax".

[youngborean]

The fact or fiction of Jesus being borne in Judah has much more to do with the linking of him to the throne of David than the incidental Bethlehem prophecy. However, there never seems to be a divergence from his link to David (although both narratives seem difficult to piece together). However, Mark seems to support that Jesus was a son of David too.


Mar 10:46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.


Mar 10:47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, [thou] Son of David, have mercy on me.


Mar 10:48 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, [Thou] Son of David, have mercy on me.

So the absence of the Birth narrative is really inconsequential. Since Mark upholds the tradition that Jesus was born to the tribe of Judah, and more specifically, a son of David.