Tom Sawyer

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Nazareth deniers - or Nazareth promoters for that matter. There doesn't seem to be much to go on either wayto make it worth taking a stand on the matter.

It just seems odd that the discovery of a house in an area known to be populated is treated as something worth a press conference. If they'd found a goblet in the house that cures diseases and makes you immortal when you drink from it then sure, that's worth mentioning. Otherwise it's more of a non-discovery.

spin

Can you please cite references for this transition?

The form "Nazarite" only exists as a christian error. If we are referring to Jews who have made a vow, they are "Nazirites".


spin

show_no_mercy

Yes, it's a Christian error, basing it on Judges 13. Mark seems to solely use "Nazarene" while Acts of the Apostles almost exclusively uses the "nazwraion" derived from Judges 13's "naziraion". The trend seems to be that earlier writings tended to use "nazarene" while later writings tended to use the Christianized "nazirite".

spin

All the brouhaha over Nazareth is total time wasting. Nazareth is not a synoptic idea, so its relevance to Jesus arrived later in the tradition. Not one reference to Nazareth find a parallel in the synoptics.

These endless "Nazareth doesn't exist/does so" threads are just inconsequential.


spin

show_no_mercy

Yes, I don't really care if Nazareth existed when the gospel authors wrote (post 70 CE). I care only if it existed when they say that it existed, which would be the late 1st century BCE, when Jesus' family supposedly lived/moved there. If it did, then it wouldn't be a post-70 anachronism.

Question

I have some rocks in my backyard from the time of Jesus...

Any buyers???

spin

Umm, I think I know just about all there is to know about this stuff. You're probably remembering thirdhand versions of stuff I've written here.


spin

show_no_mercy

Well I'm in no way claiming to be original, but I don't recall getting it from you. I just made a list of all of these instances and made a simple analysis. You probably figure it out years ago though.

ApostateAbe

If Nazareth existed in the first century (which it apparently did), then it is just one more piece of cultural background information that the gospels got correct, but it doesn't mean that Jesus existed. Even though the establishment of the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century would not verify that Jesus existed, the nonexistence of Nazareth in the first century would speak strongly in favor of the mythical-Jesus hypothesis. I think it is nuts, but it seems that nearly 100% of those who think Nazareth in the first century didn't exist are also those who think Jesus didn't exist.

Perhaps those who would favor the mythical-Nazareth theory most strongly are those who think that the New Testament stories were invented wholecloth from Greek speakers in the second century who sourced Josephus and Philo of Alexandria for the cultural information of Palestine--neither of them ever mentioned Nazareth.

I can't make a judgment about your etymological argument. You know a few things about Greek, and I know next to nothing about Greek, so I am agnostic about it. Is it purely your own argument, or is it an argument that exists within professional scholarship?

Tom Sawyer

Now, that is a good point. If there was no Nazareth, it would strongly indicate that Jesus is more wholely fictional than most people consider him to be. Having his city exist doesn't speak to his existence, but not having it exist speaks strongly to his nonexistence.