Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anunnaki · 01-28-2002, 12:07 PM

Marshall Gauvin says <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html" target="_blank">here</a>

Quote:

His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology.

Do we all agree on this or has ancient Nazareth been found since Gauvin wrote this?
I also recall reading somewhere that tthe area that now goes by that name was a burial city during Jesus` time and that it was highly taboo for Jews to live anywhere near it.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]

Toto · 01-28-2002, 01:27 PM

Here's the last thread on that topic Was there a Nazareth in Jesus' time? I don't recall that we reached a conclusion.

Frank Zindler of American Atheists claimed that Nazareth was just a graveyard in the time of Jesus, with no residents. (Article here.) (I think most of the archeology has been of graveyards.) There was also an article of unknown worth here supporting Zindler's claims. I would appreciate it if someone with more specialized knowledge that mine could evaluate this argument.

There is an inscription found in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima indicating that the priests of the order of Elkalir were settled in Nazareth after the destruction of the Temple, which is used to show that Nazareth must have existed before 70 CE. But that inscription has apparently been dated to several centuries later.

Pantera · 01-28-2002, 01:47 PM

I believe that archaelogical excavations had found no evidence of settlement the current town of Nazareth before the 3rd (4th?) Century AD. However, I believe that more recent archaelogical work may have found evidence for earlier settlement, though I don't recall the details. But even if there were no archaeological evidence, it seems plausible that an insignificant village which had been built on over and over again wouldn't leave much trace after 2000 years.

Additionally, Nazareth is not mentioned by Josephus or in the Hebrew Bible, but again that doesn't mean much except that it was too small and/or uneventful to merit attention.

As the Gospels mention Nazareth, we can be pretty sure that there was a place called Nazareth by the time they were written (if not necessarily at the time Jesus lived). Otherwise we'd have to explain why the Gospel writers managed to accurately predict the name of a town which was not to be founded for another two centuries. And sice nobody, not even someone as obviously deranged as Acharya S, tries to date the Gospels later than about 150 AD (when they started being regularly quoted by church fathers), and any date outside the 1st Century is a fairly radical position, we can be pretty sure that Nazareth existed by the early 2nd Century at least and probably earlier, rather putting the kybosh on the claim that it wasn't founded until the 4th Century. That or there was more than one town called Nazareth, or just possibly that Nazareth at the time referred to a region rather than a single town.

A further piece of evidence that Jesus did indeed come from Nazareth is that it is simply not the sort of detail the early Christians would have wanted to make up. They would rather their hero had hailed from a great city like Jerusalem, or from Bethlehem, where the Jews appear to have been expecting their Messiah to show up - not a backwater town so insignificant that no other historian of the time thought it worth a mention. The Gospel writers clearly found his birth there embarrassing given the lengths two of them went to to try to place his birth in Bethlehem instead. If they were writing pure fiction, why not just have him coming from Bethlehem in the first place?

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]

RyanS2 · 01-28-2002, 05:10 PM

I think this subject was mildly hit about here: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000045" target="_blank">Nazareth means</a>

Amen-Moses · 01-29-2002, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Pantera:
I believe that more recent archaelogical work may have found evidence for earlier settlement, though I don't recall the details.

As far as I am aware the latest is that a Maccabean period watchtower (four stone towers in a square joined by low walls and probably some sort of stockade on top) was later converted for use as a dry farming community large enough to house at most 2 families. Being a dry farm it required water to be brought up from the valley so in all likely hood there may have been some dwellings nearer the water supply.

There was (and still is I believe) a small village ariound a mile or so from the present site of Nazareth.

Nazareth may mean "the watchtower" btw.

But even if there were no archaeological evidence, it seems plausible that an insignificant village which had been built on over and over again wouldn't leave much trace after 2000 years.

Here in Britain the conditions for archeology (especially early Saxon wood built stuff) is very poor, much poorer than in the Levant where wood can survive for thousands of years in pretty good condition and buildings have always contained some stone or mud-brick elements. Even so here we can strip off the layers bit by bit and see virtually all the history of a site down to the original ground surface (i.e virgin soil showing where occupation started), if there is a village or town there then someone will find it and I find it strange that with the extensive survey work carried out there that some sign has not been found already.

Amen-Moses

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]

Oolon Colluphid · 01-29-2002, 04:18 AM

This isn't really my area, but I'd heard that the 'Nazareth' bit of Jesus's nom de guerre was a corruption of Jesus the Nazarene. Anyone know?

Cheers, Oolon

Jayhawker Soule · 01-29-2002, 08:21 AM

It looks as if poor Matthew just can't seem to get it right:

Quote:

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.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has discovered the source of this prophecy. By the way, this is the same Matthew that establishes Jesus as a descendant of the childless Jeconiah.

CX · 01-29-2002, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
It looks as if poor Matthew just can't seem to get it right:

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has discovered the source of this prophecy. By the way, this is the same Matthew that establishes Jesus as a descendant of the childless Jeconiah.

Do you suppose AMt is confusing Nazarene with the Nazirite of Judges 13? Or is he making a strained attempt at a midrashical connection like he does so often in GMt? Also do we know what the Hebrew word for Nazirite is compared to the Greek word for Nazarene? Is it possible they are cognates?

Toto · 01-29-2002, 10:10 AM

CowboyX - take a look at <a href="http://spazioweb.inwind.it/bravo/qumran/english_files/naza-eng.htm" target="_blank">The Problem of the Title Nazarene</a>.

Quote:

First of all I want to point the reader's attention to the fact that a number of authors (from the first centuries of the Christian era on) seem to be firmly convinced that Nazareth was not at all the city of Jesus Christ:

1 - "The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ...�Nazara� is the �Truth�. Therefore �Nazarene� is �The One of the Truth�..." (Gospel of Philip, 47 - a Gnostic text of the second century of the Christian era);

2 - "It is not unlikely that the first christians were called Nazarene so meaning "Nazirite", rather than "coming from Nazareth", an ethimology that is scarcely credible and was probably substituted for the first one only when the ancient origin from the Essene tradition begun to be forgotten" (Rabbi Elia Benamozegh [Italy 1823/1900, Jewish philosopher], "Gli Esseni e la Cabbalah", 1979);

3 - "The tradition itself has established the place of residence of Jesus' family in Nazareth so that it could explain the surname "Nazarene", originally joined to the name of Jesus, which became the name of the Christians in Jewish literature and in the countries of the Orient. ""Nazarene" is certainly the name of a sect, with no relation at all to city of Nazareth..." (Alfred Loisy [France, 1857/1940, a cathoic priest, and university professor of the History of Christianity, later removed], La Naissance du Christianisme);

4 - "The small city that is so called [Nazareth], where ingenuous pilgrims can visit Joseph's workshop, was identified as the city of Jesus Christ only in the Middle Ages..." (Charles Guignebert [France, 1867/1939, university professor of the History of Christianity], Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne du Christianisme);

. . .

6 - "Actually, regarding Nazareth, the historians can not find any trace of a city with that name until the Fourth Century after Christ; according to Jewish sources, until the ninth century. In the Gospels we never find the expression "Jesus of Nazareth" but only "Jesous o Nazoraios"... now, that designation, although many people tried to force the etymology upon it, cannot be related to a name like Nazareth... the name of the city of Nazareth derived from that term, and not vice versa" (Ambrogio Donini [university professor], Breve Storia delle religioni, Italy, 1959)

. . .

11 - "...Can the christians affirm that "Jesous o Nazoraios" means "Jesus the citizen of Nazareth" exactly like the expression "Leonardo da Vinci" means "Leonard the citizen of Vinci"? I think it really cannot. The Hebrew form for Nazareth is NZRT, which is late, and has been pointed Nazrat or Nazeret, but the Greek Jesous o Nazoraios, it seems to me, must come from the Aramaic Nazorai... the root NZR (with no T) occurs in the Aramaic translation of Isaiah 26:2, "a righteous people keeping faith" where the word emunim "faith" is from the root of "emeth" truth, so it is clear why that late Philip could say it means "truthful"..." (Prof. Daniel E. Gershenson - Department of Classical Studies, Gilman Hall, Tel-Aviv University, 05/12/1998).

Marduk · 01-29-2002, 02:40 PM

I have a book, as yet unread, called "The Gospel of the Nazarenes" seems like a cult similar to the Essenes, Jesus the Nazerene.

01-28-2002, 01:47 PM	#3
Pantera Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Cambridge, England, but a Scot at heart Posts: 2,431	I believe that archaelogical excavations had found no evidence of settlement the current town of Nazareth before the 3rd (4th?) Century AD. However, I believe that more recent archaelogical work may have found evidence for earlier settlement, though I don't recall the details. But even if there were no archaeological evidence, it seems plausible that an insignificant village which had been built on over and over again wouldn't leave much trace after 2000 years. Additionally, Nazareth is not mentioned by Josephus or in the Hebrew Bible, but again that doesn't mean much except that it was too small and/or uneventful to merit attention. As the Gospels mention Nazareth, we can be pretty sure that there was a place called Nazareth by the time they were written (if not necessarily at the time Jesus lived). Otherwise we'd have to explain why the Gospel writers managed to accurately predict the name of a town which was not to be founded for another two centuries. And sice nobody, not even someone as obviously deranged as Acharya S, tries to date the Gospels later than about 150 AD (when they started being regularly quoted by church fathers), and any date outside the 1st Century is a fairly radical position, we can be pretty sure that Nazareth existed by the early 2nd Century at least and probably earlier, rather putting the kybosh on the claim that it wasn't founded until the 4th Century. That or there was more than one town called Nazareth, or just possibly that Nazareth at the time referred to a region rather than a single town. A further piece of evidence that Jesus did indeed come from Nazareth is that it is simply not the sort of detail the early Christians would have wanted to make up. They would rather their hero had hailed from a great city like Jerusalem, or from Bethlehem, where the Jews appear to have been expecting their Messiah to show up - not a backwater town so insignificant that no other historian of the time thought it worth a mention. The Gospel writers clearly found his birth there embarrassing given the lengths two of them went to to try to place his birth in Bethlehem instead. If they were writing pure fiction, why not just have him coming from Bethlehem in the first place? [ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

01-29-2002, 04:09 AM	#5
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by Pantera: I believe that more recent archaelogical work may have found evidence for earlier settlement, though I don't recall the details. As far as I am aware the latest is that a Maccabean period watchtower (four stone towers in a square joined by low walls and probably some sort of stockade on top) was later converted for use as a dry farming community large enough to house at most 2 families. Being a dry farm it required water to be brought up from the valley so in all likely hood there may have been some dwellings nearer the water supply. There was (and still is I believe) a small village ariound a mile or so from the present site of Nazareth. Nazareth may mean "the watchtower" btw. But even if there were no archaeological evidence, it seems plausible that an insignificant village which had been built on over and over again wouldn't leave much trace after 2000 years. Here in Britain the conditions for archeology (especially early Saxon wood built stuff) is very poor, much poorer than in the Levant where wood can survive for thousands of years in pretty good condition and buildings have always contained some stone or mud-brick elements. Even so here we can strip off the layers bit by bit and see virtually all the history of a site down to the original ground surface (i.e virgin soil showing where occupation started), if there is a village or town there then someone will find it and I find it strange that with the extensive survey work carried out there that some sign has not been found already. Amen-Moses [ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-28-2002, 01:27 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here's the last thread on that topic Was there a Nazareth in Jesus' time? I don't recall that we reached a conclusion. Frank Zindler of American Atheists claimed that Nazareth was just a graveyard in the time of Jesus, with no residents. (Article here.) (I think most of the archeology has been of graveyards.) There was also an article of unknown worth here supporting Zindler's claims. I would appreciate it if someone with more specialized knowledge that mine could evaluate this argument. There is an inscription found in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima indicating that the priests of the order of Elkalir were settled in Nazareth after the destruction of the Temple, which is used to show that Nazareth must have existed before 70 CE. But that inscription has apparently been dated to several centuries later.

01-28-2002, 05:10 PM	#4
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	I think this subject was mildly hit about here: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000045" target="_blank">Nazareth means</a>

01-29-2002, 04:18 AM	#6
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	This isn't really my area, but I'd heard that the 'Nazareth' bit of Jesus's nom de guerre was a corruption of Jesus the Nazarene. Anyone know? Cheers, Oolon

01-29-2002, 02:40 PM	#10
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	I have a book, as yet unread, called "The Gospel of the Nazarenes" seems like a cult similar to the Essenes, Jesus the Nazerene.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.