Baidarka

When Josephus lists the towns in the Galilee he makes no mention of Nazareth. Jesus’ brother James was known as a Nazorite. Could it be that there was no town of Nazareth for Jesus to be from? Could it be that he was a Nazorite?

Jayhawker Soule

It looks like one more case of sloppy reverse engineering on the part of 'Matthew', i.e., an effort to link 'Jesus' to Isaiah 11:1 and it's reference to "netser" or offshoot (from mainstream Judaism).

CX

As far as modern archaeology can tell at the time of Jesus birth, life and ministry, Nazareth was a "city of the dead" a huge graveyard of sorts on the periphery of Jewish culture and society.

A Nazorite on the other hand was member of a particular priestly group. As someone else mentioned its possible that AMt got confused about the distinction and was trying to tie Jesus to prophecy in Isaiah conflating the tradition that he was from Nazareth (which derives from who knows where) and the significance of the Nazorites in Isaiah.

Metacrock

Archaeological evidence proves that Naz was inhabited in the 1st century.

Again, all the Christ mythers have is argument from silence. But dig this:

1) you accept argument from silence, then you have to accept my argument from silence.

2) your argument from silence proves nothing because it is much more limited. It can only quesiton 'why didn't so and so mention Jesus?'

3) there could be any number of reasons why so and so didn't mention him (or mention Naz). The most likey is because it was just too unimportant. It was basically a way station.

4) But my argument from silence has to be answered for yout to even have a case, and you can't answer it, to wit:

why didn't anyone ever question the existence of Jesus in 1900 years of talking about him? Why didn't the Jews or the Romans deny that he existed? Why didn't Celsus? Why didn't the Mishna? No one anywhere ever denied it. But if he didn't exist, no one would have heard of him prior to AD 60. But no one ever pointed this out anywhere in the enrie ancient world!

WHY??????

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Hist_Jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Hist_Jesus.html</a>

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Amen-Moses

What does the OP have to do with "Christ mythers"?

Amen-Moses

Metacrock

</strong>

Meta=&gt;Not at all true! the only two excavations (one in the 90's) prove that it was inhabited. IT was a small "family farm" but that means extended family of 34 units, that is little families.

here's the link to check out, more arguments on that page.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html</a>

Joesephus doesnt' mention it, but it is mentioned in Antqiuity.


Two mentions in antiquity "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." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

Cave dwellings in the area disprove Bible story

because Jews would not live in Caves. Apparently caves were too much like graves, and since they burried in caves they would be living among the dead.

A The Caves around Nazareth were not used for dwellings.

Letter from Mayer of Nazareth <a href="http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/nazareth.html" target="_blank">http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/nazareth.html</a> "Down the road in the center of town the huge Basilica to the Annunciation built by the Roman Catholics preserves as its altar the first Century cave home of the Virgin Mary and its foundations are built over numerous cave dwellings. They have a little archeological museum with artifacts found during this period. Up the hill is the Church of Joseph built over caves which they claim were used as carpenter shops. Across the street the Sister's of Nazareth Hospice is built over an ancient first century or earlier grave with the huge rolling stone door still in place. A block away (modern term!) the Greek Catholic Church in the market is built next to the ancient synagogue that Jesus read the Torah in and the people took him out to throw him off the hill the city was built on"


B. Caves from Basements to homes


which were destroyed by invaders University of the Holy land New Archaeological Dig shed's Light on Jesus' Boyhood AP, Dec. 97 by Karin Laub <a href="http://www.csec.ac.uk/nazareth.html" target="_blank">http://www.csec.ac.uk/nazareth.html</a>

By comparison, Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares, Pfann said. The homes later were razed by invaders: What remains are several basement caves, cisterns and silos excavated in the late 1950s during reconstruction of the Church of the Annunciation. While walking along the terraced slopes of the Nazareth Hospital grounds earlier this year, Pfann stumbled across an ancient man-made basin used for making wine&emdash;a bed-sized level area cut into the limestone for squashing grapes&emdash;and a vat below for collecting the runoff juice.
[that's why the archeaologists found only caves, not that people lived in them, they were basements and workshops and storage areas.]


It's only a single family farm


This is based upon a website, probably the one I quote from. Too bad they didnt' read the whole thing, because even though they say it's a single family farm they also say: "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares..." --Dr. Pfann

Very small, but not non-existent, not uninhabited, and not merely one family.

============================= Excavations Prove Nazareth Existed (in the time Christ)


============================= occupied since 7th century BC "Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " ([MJ]A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57 Galyaah Cornfeld, Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book .(NY: Harper and Row 1976) p. 284 "What concretely about first century Nazereth? In the first two centuries AD it was a modest village built on Rocky soil in a valley far from the main trade routes [this was before Sarapis was discovered]...


Two excavations, one led by Fther P. Viaud the other by Bagatti led to the discovery of the traditional site of the annunciation to Mary and the place which Jesus frequented as a growing lad...excavations of inscriptions there bear witness to a Jewish Christian cult of Mary from the very earliest times..." Some of those inscriptions also go back to the middle of the first century and identfy the place as the that of Jesus' boyhood home!


Excavations of Naz

Nazaraeth The Village of Jessu, Mary and Joseph Franciscan cyerspot <a href="http://christusrex.org/www1/ofm/san/TSnzarc2.html" target="_blank">http://christusrex.org/www1/ofm/san/TSnzarc2.html</a> The church of the Annunciation stands over the extreme southern end of the ancient village. Having examined the site occupied by the church of 1730, the outline of the Crusader church became clearer. In the northern nave the Crusaders had left the rocky elevation of the grotto and between two pilasters had made a stairway to the shrine. The excavations of 1955 unveiled the plan of the Byzantine church. Orientated as that of the Crusaders, it had 3 naves, with a convent to the S and an atrium to the W. It was 40 m. in length. Delving under the Byzantine construction the franciscan archaeologists found plastered stones with signs and inscriptions, which certainly formed part of a preexisting building on the site.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Gooch's dad

Metacrock;

Please show me one supernatural claim that WAS debunked in the first century.

This is where the two arguments from silence are fundamentally different--we do have Josephus claiming to list all the towns in the Galilee. "All the towns" makes a definite claim.

We do NOT have the Greater Palestinian Society of Skeptics newsletter, listing the cults which they have so far failed to debunk.

Nice try, but no go.

-Kelly

Vorkosigan

Two quick points:

Reed, in Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, says that massive church building activities obscure much of the evidence for first century Nazareth. However, evidence says that there was a small village of 400 at the time, about 4 hectares in size. There is no evidence for public structures, no inscriptions, and no evidence of houses. Reed says later building has destroyed the evidence of houses. Traces of terracing and traces of a vineyard tower have been found, along with straining depressions, fermenting vats, and depressions to hold storage jars. Reed is an archaeologist and has written a book with Crossan.

As for the oft-repeated "why didn't anyone deny Jesus in the early days," the question is answered by Ignatius in Trallians and Magnesians, and in John as well. People clearly did go around denying the historicity of Jesus, or Ignatius would not have listed historical details to rebut them. And of course, there is Hebrews 8:4 "Now if he had been on Earth..."

which pretty much settles the matter.

Vorkosigan

leonarde

I'm not clear on what is being alleged here. Is it:

1)Nazareth wasn't inhabited/didn't exist in Josephus' time (so around 37 to 100 AD)

AND thus the Gospels must have been written much
later than the second half of the 1st Century
(ie at a time when Nazareth WAS inhabited)?

OR

2)the Gospel writers were near-contemporaries of
Josephus but they just decided to INVENT the name
of a town since everything else was "invented"?
(Then an actual village acquired this name).

Cheers!

Metacrock

</strong>


Meta =&gt; Jesus' existence is not a supernatural claim. It's not a question of supernatural. But in fact, you are in error in your assumptions. There were people who did debunck supernatural claims. It was Tacitus' hobby to expose resurrection hoaxes. He never even attempted to expose that of Jesus' however.

Meta =&gt;NO we don't! He never says "I've listed every single one." He's listed the one's that were important enough to list. besides, that just doesn't matter. You have so and so and he says this, that is unimportant. To try and figure out why he didn't say something, that is not proof. What is proof is my three archaeological excavations, that is empirical proof and it disproves the whole argument!


Meta =&gt; Yea they did actually. Tacitus, Sutoneious and Lucien all liked to debunck supernatural claims.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>