aa5874

No CITY OF NAZARETH has been found.

The NT clearly stated that NAZARETH was a CITY.

Where are the ruins of the supposed 1st century CITY called Nazareth?



Mt 2:23 - Lu 1:26 - It appears that there was no CITY called Nazareth in the 1st century.

ApostateAbe

Oh, yeah, I totally forgot to address that point.

Tom Sawyer

Well, that's not really much of an announcement.

ApostateAbe

It would otherwise be boring, but the Nazareth-deniers make it a lot more fun.

show_no_mercy

Really? Why do earlier writings by Christians tend to use "nazarene" while later Christian writings tend to use "nazirite"? A "Nazirite" isn't a reference to a town.

BTW your response didn't answer my question at all. All you did was cite your own personal incredulity, not any evidence. The earliest references to Nazareth as a town are in the mid-2nd century (which fits in with when the gospels were more than likely written). Hence they're anachronistic. I would like evidence that a town called "Nazareth" existed in the late first century BCE. The article provided a date range of almost 200 years (100 BCE - 100 CE). Even by most biblical scholars, the gospels were written close to 100 CE.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Apostate,

It is pseudo-science because it relates an ordinary archaeological finding, the finding of a single small housing structure from sometime in the First or Second century to a story written in the First or Second century without any evidence that the structure relates in any meaningful way to the story.

If I find a toy train at the North Pole and I declare that this adds weight to the idea that Santa Claus existed, I have not made a great scientific discovery of interest to millions of children who believe in Santa Claus. At best I have proved that one of the numerous expeditions that have traveled to the North Pole had someone who carried a toy train with them. It is a trivial discovery that adds nothing to the possibility that Santa Claus actually existed.

In this case, we can say that among thousands of ancient sites in the area of Galilee that was occupied in the First and Second centuries, at least one of them later became known by the name of Nazareth. It is a trivial discovery that adds nothing to the possibility that Jesus Christ actually existed.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ApostateAbe

The evidence I gave was in the first sentence. They are facts, not personal incredulity. The gospels were most likely written in the first century. If you think the gospels were written in the second century, then it is more of a matter of your own personality, not mine.

show_no_mercy

You didn't give me any evidence that the town Nazareth existed in the late first century BCE. It's your own personal incredulity that the gospel authors weren't being anachronistic.

Again, where is your evidence that a town called Nazareth existed in the late first century BCE - when Jesus' family would have settled there? I don't really care if Nazareth exists in the post-2nd temple time period, since that's not the question I'm asking.

And what about the transition from "nazarene" to "nazarite" in Christian writings? "Nazarite" is not a reference to any town.

ApostateAbe

It is good to hear you say that, Philosopher Jay. I would not say that the confirmation of the existence of Nazareth in the first century confirms the existence of Jesus, though it may make the claims that Christianity was invented by the Greeks even more unlikely than before.

ApostateAbe

This is getting weird, and I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there may be evidence that Nazareth existed in the first century CE, but you really need evidence that Nazareth existed in the first century BCE or else it didn't exist in the first century BCE?