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?

[youngborean]

As far as your opinion on scholarship, tell that to Robert H. Eisenman.

There is all sorts of scholarship. My argument was based on purely linguistic scholarship. The actual meaning of NZR translated nazarite and how it could be applied to Jesus could be discussed sperately. This doesn't negate your proposed interpretation, it only states as I said, "There is no modern etymological evidence to support your assertion." There may be other evidence, such as the testimony of scholars like Eisenman based on his authority, but this is in contrast to the modern colloquial Hebrew word for Nazareth. Maybe he guessed right, but he guessed. I'll go with Albright.

Yeah, I know. The whole "Bartimaeus" thing is just so cheesy...Technically 'Mark' is calling Jesus a "Son of David" but I don't think that phrase, spoken by that character, in that context is particularly strong evidence for Jesus' ancestry, and especially not for the purpose of supporting the 'Bethlehem' tradition. I wish that I could explain why not. I don't think it's just bias on my part. I think that it has something to do with the name "Bartimaeus". It kinda makes the whole pericope seem artificial.

My point is that a contradiction was suggested. But there is a long way to show that it is really there. I think that with 2 accounts calling Jesus a son of David in the flesh coupled with this phrase was enough to make me go this way. The site you linked is interesting. I didn't notice the matthew phrase. So is this inferring that people were expecting messiah to be a healer or that all healers were called a "son of david"?

[Lotan]

So is this inferring that people were expecting messiah to be a healer or that all healers were called a "son of david"?

Maybe and maybe. It seems like "Son of David" had more meanings than just the literal one, though. I doubt that Jesus' career fit the expectations of very many.

[micatala]

I'm getting into this one late, so forgive me if I gloss over a lot of the discussion that has gone on.

With respect to the original post of trenc, I would note that after reading the source, one can certainly not reach the conclusion that Nazarath did not exist or even that it did not exist at the time of Jesus. The best one can say is that there is no conclusive proof that it did exist at the time of Jesus. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In addition, the folks putting up this website seem to be a very interesting group, devoted to 'Essenic Studies'. From what I can tell, they believe in the inspiration of non-canonical writings like The Gospel of THomas and The Gospel of the Twelve, reincarnation, and other mystical stuff.

Is this really a reliable source?

THe version of the Gospel of the Holy Twelve referred to is edited/translaged by one Gideon Jasper Ousely, an Irish clergyman, who claims to have obtained it from Buddhist monks in Tibet, who in turn obtained it from an early Christian era Essene believer. See here for some information on the REverende OUsely and the Gospel of the Holy Twelve. IT is purported to be a truer depiction of Jesus and his Gospel's than in the 'corrupted' existing scriptures.

I know other sources have been brought into the discussion, but I have to question whether there is much of anything to the central contention of this thread. It is certainly unjustified, IMHO, to conclude that there is some kind of Christian hoax with respect to Nazareth.

[Lotan]

Is this really a reliable source?

For that matter, the Ken Humphries site isn't exactly objective scholarship either. (It's kind of fun though!)

If the purpose of this thread is to provide evidence for the claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed then I would like to share the opinion of historian Michael Grant on the subject...

"...modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' - or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Jesus - An Historian's Review of the Gospels pg. 200

[Cathar1950]

Eisenman mentions A group of Essens who were Nazarites living in the area that is now Nazareth. It is possible that Jesus was related to these people. They had them in Galilee also. These people were corresponding with each other and fellow believers in places like Petra and Alexandria.
I think Eisenman's ideas do have some merit and are interesting.
There has been a lot of archaeology done since the day's of Albright.
He did have his biases as well as being a brilliant scholar. The field is much more diverse and the methods more strenuous today.
I have noticed that the more conservative the stance the older the archeological sources. You can look at the bibliographies and read the copy right dates. It would be an interesting study and correlation to explore.

[youngborean]

So was there an inscription that spelled Nazareth with a Zayin since the days of Albright? I am failing to see how being novel through the imagination is advancing archeology at all. Albright interpreted the Hebrew root of Nazarene correctly and there has been no new primary evidence to refute it. There are theoretical assertions based on coincidence and secondary evidence, but the really add up to little for advance the collective knowledge of this word.

[Cathar1950]

We are talking about the town not the word.
Before you started your linguistic scholarship rant away from the subject. That the words are related linguistically has not changed, maybe in greek you got a point, but we are talking about a semitic language and it's roots and the reason why there was no town there and why they may have made a mistake in translation and intent.
The point was that there maybe a connection between the group of Nazarenes, the Essenes Jesus, and Nazareth. Given Paul's Nazarite vow in Acts and the early church writers understanding, It is not all that farfetched.
The alternate possibilities are still there and are interesting despite your praise for an out dated archaeology and an fine archaeologists opinion.
I happen to like Albright and some of his students, but there is more to learn and a lot more available.
I think there is more then meets the eye concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls,
and early Christianity as well as politics and Jesus' Kingship and Paul's Cosmic Christ and the mystery religion. I think we are only getting a little of the story. So I enjoy learn about things outside what I already know or belive. Think outside the box.

[youngborean]

But there is no archeological evidence to refute anything Albright has claimed about the Hebrew root of Nazereth being Nun - tsadek - Resh. Your point that Nazereth was made up because there were Essenes in the geographical proximity of Nazereth is hardly conclusive, there were Essenes throughout Israel at that time as well as people taking Nazarite vows, that doesn't automatically mean that there was a mistake in the new testament, unless you are biased towards seeing mistakes. Maybe there was a connection as you suggest, but the linguistic evidence does not favor you. Alternate possibilities are always there, just as there are really British Israelites, but it can hardly be considered progress if they are destroying a logical foundation to get there. The only post Albright major Archeological find supports the existence of Nazereth as a town at the time of Jesus. The Maritima inscription excavated in 1962 implies that priests settled there at aprox 135 AD. This makes me (and many other logical thinkers Christian and not) believe it probably had a name and inhabitants before that. Either way, shouldn't essene story should then be considered at least equally vague and fabricated by you? Since there is no direct link to the Essenes and Jesus that can be substantiated with verified primary evidence.

[Cathar1950]

for a minute I thought you said

But there is no archeological evidence to refute anything Albright has claimed

but I see you added

about the Hebrew root of Nazereth being Nun - tsadek - Resh.

Which is as irrelevant, as your linguistic evidence, and archeological later find then the time we are talking about, Jesus' lifetime.

Your point that Nazereth was made up because there were Essenes in the geographical proximity of Nazereth is hardly conclusive, there were Essenes throughout Israel at that time as well as people taking Nazarite vows, that doesn't automatically mean that there was a mistake in the new testament, unless you are biased towards seeing mistakes.

I didn't say it meant there had to be mistakes. I pointed out the possibility given there is no evidence until 135 CE. Are you biased towards there being no mistakes and not seeing any?

This makes me (and many other logical thinkers Christian and not) believe it probably had a name and inhabitants before that

That doesn't make you logical. There may have been inhabitants, just not a town.

Either way, shouldn't essene story should then be considered at least equally vague and fabricated by you? Since there is no direct link to the Essenes and Jesus that can be substantiated with verified primary evidence.

That doesn't follow. I am not fabricating they may have. I would say there is as much link to the Essenes and Jesus as there is to The NT's historical Jesus maybe more.
The Way, The Poor, the Ebonites, The Essenes, The Jesseans,and The Nazarenes, all point to a interesting correlation.

[youngborean]

I didn't say it meant there had to be mistakes. I pointed out the possibility given there is no evidence until 135 CE. Are you biased towards there being no mistakes and not seeing any?

But there is the complementary evidence of the NT that points to a town before 135 CE.

That doesn't make you logical. There may have been inhabitants, just not a town.

Ok so you would compromise that there were inhabitants in a town that wasn't called anything, that was mistakenly referred to as a town by texts that predate an archeological find which confirms a town of Nazareth in 135. And this find was from a seperate religious tradition.

I would say there is as much link to the Essenes and Jesus as there is to The NT's historical Jesus maybe more.
The Way, The Poor, the Ebonites, The Essenes, The Jesseans,and The Nazarenes, all point to a interesting correlation.

And that is fine to believe this with no primary evidence or etymological evidence. We can all guess with what is not written in the margins, and come up with a myriad of other stories that can't be substantiated and therefore cannot be refuted. But the link is only inferred through faith, and a large amount of faith at that given the poor scholarship that has made these connections. It seems that you rest your whole stance on possibility, which seems to contradict the overwhelming primary and secondary evidence to uphold the Town of Nazareth, and the lack of connection to Nazarites.