mens_sana

The Septuagint was produced because Jews in the Diaspora could no longer read Hebrew. By the 1st century, the Hebrew Torah was pretty much confined to the Temple and assorted classrooms. There were several versions of the Septuagint, some in Palestine itself. Most Jews couldn't read Hebrew and had no need to do so.

On Nazareth being a fiction, please mail a correction to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. They're pretty sure they've been digging in a nonfictional Nazareth. Please also refer to Michael Avi-Yonah's "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea," Israel Exploration Journal 12 [1962]: 137-139, pl. 13) for a disinterested evaluation of an inscription that pretty much establishes a 1st century Nazareth. (The IEJ is available through Interlibrary Loan — yes, I was that interested.)

yalla

mens,
I'm interested in the "priestly courses'' thing also.
Unfortunately I can't access the detail of your source, I tried in the past but failed.
Could you give some of the detail of the article please?
My understanding is that it originates some centuries after the first century and may be a back reference influenced by the "discovery" and naming of a site as Nazareth.
Without being too sceptical I would point out that the "naming' of a site as ..whatever...by archaeologists is potentially based based on hope rather than objective evidence.
For example the site of Cana was recently "discovered" by archaeologists....in 2 separate places many kms. apart!
There have been exhaustive threads on the alleged site of Nazareth and , for me anyway, the jury is out as to whether it is a proven fact that the present site is correctly labelled.
cheers
yalla

Charles Wilson

Jay Raskin's great new book, _Evolution of Christs and Christianities_ gives a quite reasonable explanation of this.
Let us hear it straight from Philosopher Jay, however...
Jay? Jay?!?? JAY!!!

mens_sana

The inscription (on marble, I believe) is from the Byzantine period and lists the same priestly courses as those in I Chronicles 24, except that this list tells us where the courses resettled after the destruction of the temple ( in 70 or 135?). One of the priestly courses is that of Hapizez (or Happizzez and mucho variant spellings!) and it resettled in Nazareth. The list of priestly courses is again repeated in Mishmaroth 18, but I've been unable to locate a translation of this and do not know whether it contains the relocation points. (If anyone can provide this, I would be quite grateful.)

There is no chance that anyone's wishful thinking is part of this picture. It is a Jewish inscription from a Jewish synagogue, listing Jewish priestly courses, and where each of them settled after leaving Jerusalem. The mention of Nazareth is just another place on the list. And the inscription was found by Michael Avi-Yonah, a Jewish archaeologist, with no axe to grind. Although the inscription required some reconstruction because of damage, none of the "essential" part was part of this reconstruction. Also, while "back reference" has been argued, no one has been able to explain WHY a thoroughly Jewish inscription would be influenced by Christian "hopes and fears." (One person told me that he thought Eusebius forged it — give me a break!)

There are also no archaeological reasons to think that anyone has been excavating in the wrong place. The site has been continuously occupied since the MB and Herodian tombs have been found just outside the hamlet's boundaries. That the site was not a "city" and did not have a 1st century synagogue is not a problem either. The gospel authors were proclaiming the truth of their messiah and messiahs cannot come from unknown hamlets — therefore it was a city. Crossan and Reed (Excavating Jesus) tell us that no 1st century synagogues have been found in Palestine. However, before synagogue became a term for a building (in the Diaspora), it was a term for a convocation. Every hamlet and village would have had a convocation; few would be able to afford and set aside a building.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Charles,

You said my name three times. I am not sure if I am supposed to appear or disappear. Thanks for the adjective regarding my book.(People can go to EVOCC.COM for more information)

In my book, chapter 11, pps. 531-532, I do demonstrate that Marcion invented the town of Nazareth for Jesus to be born in, apparently to explain the title Jesus the Nazarene.

The evolution of the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth follows roughly along these lines:

In the 30's there was a Galilean man named John who was a priest and/or advisor to Herod the Tetarch. He was a big supporter of Herod's Nabatean wife, the daughter of King Aretas IV. He was sent to the castle of Macherus in 36 probably along with the King's daughter. What happened to him after that is anybody's guess, but he seems to have disappeared. The rumor was that Herod had him beheaded.

He apparently got the reputation for being a Nazorean, from the word Natzrat (guard) or nizer (holy to God, set apart). (It may have developed because of his loyalty to the Nabatean Princess or because he swore some kind of oath to God). Mandean followers of John continued to call themselves Nazoreans for centuries.

In any case, when Herod was defeated in a war by King Aretas, John the Nazorean, picked up a reputation for prophesy. He may or may not have had one before the war. His following grew, along with the expectation that he would return, and certain of his followers proclaimed him the Christ (the King that God would send to save Israel) and a small minority even proclaimed him the Christ Jesus (the returning King Joshua of Nun).

He also was associated with a daily bathing ritural known as baptism. I would imagine he probably did do some baptisms as anti-Roman publicity stunts to counter the influence of the Roman Bathhouses. In the Roman-built bathhouses, throughout Judea, Jews mixed with polytheistic peoples of every nationality. Bathing in natural streams probably was a potent anti-Roman symbol for this Jewish sin against God.

A few more years passed and the memory of John the Nazarene, the prophet, the baptist, and Jesus faded, but the fables and tales grew. It because more acceptable to refer to him as Jesus the Nazarene/Nazorean in stories about him. His John the Baptist tales separated out into an independent character. Ironically this John the Baptist character actually baptises the Jesus the Nazorean character at some point.

In the second century, when Jesus Mystery cults started to appear, heavily influenced by Cybelene, Dionysian and Mithraic worship, it became an embarassment to certain Gnostic Christians that he was refered to as a Nazarene. Marcion, perhaps following other Gnostics, suggested that Jesus got the nickname, the Nazarene (or Nazorean), from the fact that he grew up in a village called Nazareth. If this was an actual village or a made-up name of a village is hard to say, but since we have no information regarding the village before this time, we may assume that it was made up to disassociate Jesus from the group calling itself the Nazoreans at this time (the Mandean followers of John)

Apparently in the Gospel of Mark circa 100, the Jesus character is from Capernaum. The much later (180 CE?) Matthew has him moving to Nazareth as a child and Luke (207 CE?) has his parents coming from Nazareth.

My book provides the detailed evidence for these points.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mens_sana

I would like to see what Philosopher Jay has to say about Michael Avi-Yonah's synagogue inscription found in Caesarea.

PhilosopherJay

Hi mens_sana,

It is a little surprising, but possible. It would mean that instead of making up the name of the town, Marcion or prior gnostics had used the name of the recently created town.

I would like to know how solid the archaeological evidence is. I tend to agree with the sentiments that Ted Hoffman expressed in Feb, 2005 on an internet infidels thread:

(from http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116518)

Ted Hoffman (on post #2214744) noted:
I am beginning to think its time some experts looked at this Caesarea Maritima marble closely. Altman should be part of that group of experts. In what language was it written? Who dated it? Why would anybody be interested in inscribing, in marble, that "the eighteenth century course settled at Nazareth"? I think scholarship has accepted this alleged marble inscription too uncritically. Given that it was excavated in 1962, I think its worth a second look after all, this is around the same time that SGM was allegedly discovered so its well within the 'era of forgery'.

Many others have noticed the late introduction of the Nazareth-hometown theme. In my book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, I do give some unique proofs, for example, I note that Tertullian speaks about Jesus for roughly 800 pages that we now possess. Yet, he only mentions the term "Nazareth" once, and only to blame Marcion for having his Jesus come from there. This is a loud silence indeed.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mens_sana

I have photo reproductions of the fragments and of Avi-Yonah's pen & ink reconstruction — looks like Hebrew to me. Avi-Yonah dated it and found it as part of his 1962 excavation of a synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Caesarea Maritima. Why would anyone not be interested in inscribing part of his religious heritage in marble? Calling it "an alleged marble inscription" is rather strange. It IS an inscription on marble. Suggesting the possibility of forgery, with no background for the suggestion, seems like an argument of convenience to me — rather like the poster who thought it was a parchment inscription and suggested that Eusebius forged it (along with Josephus' Testimoniam, and innumerable handy interpolations).

PhilosopherJay

Hi mens_sana,

As you recall a poster who alleged fraud without any evidence, I may point to a thousand Christian websites that trumpeted the James Ossuary as the absolute proof for the existence of Jesus. They accepted the evidence based on the testimony of only the first people to examine it.

In the case of archaeological finds that relate to proving controversial things in the Bible, we should always examine the evidence carefully to see if, perhaps, the first experts have been carried away in their zeal and misinterpreted the finds. This has happened numerous times.

I simply would like to know more about who has studied the object in question and what tests have been done to establish that the interpretation of the find is correct. Until I have that information, I cannot accept it as evidence, but only as potential evidence, for the existence of Nazareth after 135 CE.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay.

yalla

mens kindly sent me a photo of the inscription.

Looks like Hebrew to me, but I'm a mug in that respect.
From prior reading I believe the inscription is dated to the early 4th century.
If so, that raises some questions.
What was the source of information that was the basis for the inscription and what was it's provenance in the intervening 200 or so years approximately?
AFAIK the "discovery'' of the place that later [later than the first century] was given the name of Nazareth occurred sometime in the 4th century. I believe Origen in the 3rd century did not know where it was, Eusebius, I believe, was ignorant of it's alleged site and the Pilgrim of Bordeaux [?] c330CE, was the first to "find" it. Or maybe he/she couldn't find it, I'm not sure.
Anyway how was it decided, by whom, that the present site is that which is referred to in the gospels?
I am reminded of 2 places both being claimed as Cana.
Seek and ye shall find?
Anyway I sure would like to know more about this inscription.