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?

[Cathar1950]

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

The writings are suspect and the ones in question they could hardly count as complementary evidence.

And that is fine to believe this with no primary evidence or etymological evidence.

I guess the same could be said for "he shall be called a Nazarene.
You not only fail to show primary evidence, the problem was a lack of it.
You etymology deals with greek 100 years after the time.

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.

I wouldn't say he has done poor scholarship. I think your value judgement
might have to do with you predisposed need to find no error, contradiction, or mistakes in the NT. I have no faith, commitment or stake in it.
There is no evidence for a town there but there is evidence for a group of people that were Nazrarens which has a connection to Jesus and the early church at least as the told the story. I wouldn't say it was a separate religious tradition unless you mean Pauline Christianity and the 2nd century Christianity. The connection is there even in the NT even if it is twisted. The Jews had many factions and they did communicate despite their differences the were Jews with varying views. It was like some one saying all Jews looked for a Messiah. This is simply not true and there were different interpretations. Some times it was "a messiah" some times it was the messiah. I think you read into the OT and Judaism from a western orthodox Christian bias.

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.

Like I said they are not separate religious traditons. Maybe factions but even that is debateable and the jury is still out. Your running around in circles talking about two different topics and missing the topic due to your insistence that the bible must be right and all the evidence fits, because you can not look at any other alternative. You agree with Albright so he is a scholar,any one who doesn't agree is doing poor scholarship.
You have not presented any evidence that is relevant. The point was there are no records of the town until 100 years after the fact. This alone might lead anyone to wonder about the date of Matthew's Gospel. It might be later then usually considered. I have read estimates that make it 135 CE and after the second uprising. Of course that is bad scholarship. Because it doesn't agree with you. Of course the whole Nazareth thing might have been put in there long after Matt. was first composed.
We have no originals or copies of copies and the fragments disagree.
You might want to look into the questionable parts of Matt.. If he(the composer of Matt) could misinterpret and twist so easily the the prophesies of the OT, I don't know why he couldn't have got a town wrong or misunderstand.

[youngborean]

My evidence is pretty clear.

1.Primary texts dated from anywhere from 20 - 100 years from the time of Jesus calling Nazareth a town.
2.Secondary archeological evidence noting settlement activity during that time.
3. Secondary archeological from a seperate religious tradition calling it Nazareth at least within 100 years of Jesus.
4. Mordern Hebrew maintains the etymology of spelling Nazareth with a tsere.


Your evidence:
1. Nazareth sounds like Nazarite in english (let's forget about linguistics), therefore Jesus was obviously a Nazarite.
2. Some essenes were Nazarites, and Essenes lived in Israel at the time of Jesus therefore Jesus is an Essene.
3. Paul shaved his head for a vow, therefore Jesus is an Nazarite.
4. The Gospels were reffering to Samson becuase it's fun to make up stuff.


There isn't much competition in my mind. You have a long way to go here to descredit the NT this issue. The perception that the NT may have other mistakes lends nothing to the discussion of this issue in particular.

[Cathar1950]

youngborean's pretty clear evidence

1.Primary texts dated from anywhere from 20 - 100 years from the time of Jesus calling Nazareth a town.

You have no texts dating from anywhere near that time.

2.Secondary archeological evidence noting settlement activity during that time.

A community of Nazarenes is a settlement.

3

. Secondary archeological from a seperate religious tradition calling it Nazareth at least within 100 years of Jesus.

No one is arguing about that.

4. Mordern Hebrew maintains the etymology of spelling Nazareth with a tsere.

I was talking about Nazarenes I don't care what they called the town.
When Matt. talks about "he shall be called a nazarene" if he was talking about anything in the OT he was not talking about the town in any language.
My evidence: (acording to youngborean)
I wasn't really presenting any as such.

1. Nazareth sounds like Nazarite in english (let's forget about linguistics), therefore Jesus was obviously a Nazarite.

His brother was suppose to be.
Some very early followers call themsevles Nazarene
Matt. uses an OT reference that had nothing to do with a town.
You might want to give Matt. the Hebrew lesson, he got the virgin thing wrong.
I don't care what it sounds like in any language.

2. Some essenes were Nazarites, and Essenes lived in Israel at the time of Jesus therefore Jesus is an Essene.

The jury is still out on this one.
That they happened to be there at the same time is a given.
There are historical links with the Ebonites, Nazarenes, The Way, The Poor
and forms of Christianity.
The fractions seem to have a lot in common with the Jesus movement.

3. Paul shaved his head for a vow, therefore Jesus is an Nazarite.

No but Paul was a follower of Jesus among many varieties. I wonder why He and James agree to have him do that. Acts seems to think it was a Nazarite vow. I wonder how they spelled it.

4. The Gospels were referring to Samson because it's fun to make up stuff.

Why not? But I think they had more in mind then fun. I am not even sure it was all that fun.
Wasn't Samson a Nazarene? Again some spelling. Hebrew and Greek.

[youngborean]

I was talking about Nazarenes I don't care what they called the town.
When Matt. talks about "he shall be called a nazarene" if he was talking about anything in the OT he was not talking about the town in any language.

Ok. Well you'd be the first one to explain that there was no connection to the town of Nazareth and the Term Nazarene in Matthew. Matthew makes a connection to the prophets and the city of Nazareth.

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

The Messiah was called a Netser throughout the book of Isaiah. Same Hebrew root as the Hebrew town of Nazareth, same connection that Matthew makes.

I wasn't really presenting any as such.

This has also been my assertion.

[Cathar1950]

Oh so Isaiah was talking about a town.
That no one knew about.
How cleaver of Matt.

Quote:

I wasn't really presenting any as such.

This has also been my assertion.

So you answer with data to prove Matt. had to be right and the town had to exsist.
And of course Jesus had nothiing to do with Nazarenes.
I am glad you got to the root of the matter.

Robert H. Eisenman in his book James the Brother of Jesus : The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Quote:
All Christians were once called Nazoraens. For a short time they were also given the name Jessaens[that is 'Essenes'], befor the Disciples in Antioch began to be call Christians
. p.243.

He was quoting the early church fathers.

But I supose that is poor scholarship on his part being he is wrong and everthing.

[youngborean]

So you answer with data to prove Matt. had to be right and the town had to exsist.

No. You brought up Matthew and said what Matthew was speaking.

Matt. uses an OT reference that had nothing to do with a town.
You might want to give Matt. the Hebrew lesson, he got the virgin thing wrong.
I don't care what it sounds like in any language.

I was just showing that Matthew connects the term Nazarene to the town Nazareth, which anyone reading 2:23 can see.

Since Nazarene's hebrew root is Notsree the connection to Isaiah is apparent to anyone who knows the scriptures in Hebrew (Matthew's audience). The passage in Samson has never been linked to the Messiah by any early Christian or Jewish scholar.

And of course Jesus had nothiing to do with Nazarenes.

Never said anything like that. Lot's of religious sects have developed believing many things. It is concievable that Chrisitians wanted to be called what Jesus was called. But that still doesn't make the connection to Nazarite, which would be an entirely different word.

[Cathar1950]

It seems to me that Albright might agree with me. At least in the possibility.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt84.html

5. The origin of the name Nazareth. As noted in the previous paragraph, Thomas Aquinas, following the speculations of the Fathers of the Church, considers two possible origins of the name Nazareth. One possibility is that it comes from the Hebrew root nzr in the form of the noun nazir, meaning someone "set apart," "consecrated," and, therefore, "holy," or in the form of the noun nezer, meaning "crown." A second possibility is that it comes from the Hebrew noun netser, meaning "branch" or "flower." And it is not clear which of the two is the original etymon or even which of the two is intended by the divine Author as the spiritual sense of the text. As Cornelius a Lapide pointed out more than three centuries ago, while the Greek text of Matthew seems to have been translated from a Hebrew or Aramaic original, the Greek words Nazoraios and Nazarenos do not indicate the answer, since the Greek consonant zeta (pronounced like the dz in adze) would be the same for both nazir (with zayin) and netser (with tsade). And William Albright, in his penetrating research into the possible origin of the name Nazareth, concluded that, in view of the linguistic phenomenon of "consonant shift," either word could be the root of Nazareth. Albright, in fact, favored the root netser and thought that the original name of Nazareth was probably Notseret. 4 Bargil Pixner maintains that the Greek word nazoraios in Matt 2:23 "certainly" comes from netser, because a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea in 1962 and dating back to the third or fourth century A.D., spells Nazareth with tsade and not with zayin. And this discovery, he says, "eliminates the supposition that the appellation Natzoraios/Nazarene was linked to the name Nazirite. 5 But this conclusion ignores the linguistic phenomenon of "consonant shift" as well as the possibility that the spelling of the name Nazareth may have been ambiguous back in the first century A.D. Pixner claims also that the title "Natzorean/Nazarene" denotes especially the royal status of Jesus as a descendant of King David, basing this assumption on the supposition that a "Davidic clan" resettled the deserted area of Nazareth around 100 B.C. and the conjecture that they then became known as "Natzoreans," that is, as a kinship planted by God. 6 However, this last conjecture is weakly based and is challenged by the remark of Nathanael in John 1:46. 7 Moreover, Pixner does not seem to distinguish clearly enough between the literal and the spiritual meanings of the word as it is used in Matt 2:23.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• 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'. Rabbi Solly's 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.

History and archaeology actually begin to coincide with the discovery of a fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century the stone bears the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 AD. Such groups would only settle in towns without gentile inhabitants, which ruled out nearby Sepphoris. Apparently, the priests had been divided from ancient times into twenty-four 'courses' that took weekly turns in Temple service. The restored inscription reads:

'The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nasareth.'
J.D. Crossan (The Historical Jesus)
A few Jewish priests and their families made up a small settlement in the southeast of the valley until the 4th century. Quite probably, they extended and re-used some of the ancient necropolis tombs. The Jewish hamlet was then supplanted by the Christian presence slightly further north, by 'Mary's Well'.

It is possible that after the revolt of 135 CE a group of Nazarenes lived there and were followers of Jesus. The may have been an embarrassment to the gentile church. Matt. account could very easily be added later as well as others to explain away why he was called an Nazarene.
All in all Matt. and Luke are not all that reliable.
The complaint was so loud I wonder at the crediblity. I am not sure that it is a hoax but a later addition as was the ending of Mark.

[youngborean]

I never argued against the possibilty. I, like albright, favor the correct root. Anything is a possibility, but one root has more evidence to the other. Leaving solid scholarship, like Albright's, to conclude that netser is the correct root.

All in all Matt. and Luke are not all that reliable.

Is Mark?

Mark 1:9 "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan."

There were many towns in the Galilee that weren't mentioned in the OT or in the Talmud. This would only support the correct interpretation that Nazareth was insignificant.

I can't think of any instances that the new Testament has been historically refuted. There are absolutely holes, making room for anything the imagination can come up with. But this is similar to Pilate. For a long time people claimed that Pilate never existed, and then an inscription with his name dating to the exact time of Jesus was found at Ceaserea. This is just like Pilate. Not finding enough evidence to prove the Historical Nazareth really means nothing. The historical elements of the NT have already been established with the Pilate example. The NT description of Nazareth is evidence enough.

[fire_of_Jesus]

who ever disagrees with me is wrong for it is a fact that jesus did come from nazerath. the people who proved this otherwise were oviously not christian or muslim, even muslims believe that jesus came from nazerath, and muslums dont even believe that jesus was gods son. so they are questioning 2 religions faith now arent they? so why should we believe them. heck evolutionist believe that we came from apes, well i would say more but i have to go bye.

[micatala]

I would have to agree that, at the very least, there is no reason to conclude that the town of Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus.

Having said that, I think the following arguement is not a valid one.

who ever disagrees with me is wrong for it is a fact that jesus did come from nazerath. the people who proved this otherwise were oviously not christian or muslim, even muslims believe that jesus came from nazerath, and muslums dont even believe that jesus was gods son. so they are questioning 2 religions faith now arent they? so why should we believe them.

I'm sorry, even if an idea or fact runs counter to what some in one or two or N particular faiths believe, that does not make it false. Yes, I think Jesus existed and came from Nazareth, but it is fair for those who doubt to ask what evidence, other than the Gospel accounts, exists to support this contention.

Just because person A questions the tenets of a person B's faith doesn't mean person B should disbelieve A. ONe should examine the arguement on its merits.

Jesus questioned the tenets of some of the Jews. Was it right for them to disbelieve him? Galileo questioned the tenets of both Protestants and Catholics. Were they right to disbelieve him?

We can certainly leave discussion of evolution to another thread. I will simply note that I am a Christian and do not believe evolution is in any way atheistic, unbiblical, or anti-Christian.