mens_sana

Howdy PJ, I do recall numerous charges of "forgery" and "interpolation," often offered with no back-up when the discussion was getting sticky. As far as I'm concerned, that puts them on the same level as those trumpeting the James ossuary as proof of Jesus' existence — a pox on both their houses!

Perhaps you overlooked one of my points here. It is a Jewish inscription from a Jewish synagogue found by a Jewish archaeologist. A Jewish archaeologist might be interested in an item that ironed out a problem in the Torah, but the problem here is not IN the Torah — it is in the NT. Hence Michael Avi-Yonah is a disinterested witness. In other words this is not F.F. Bruce's evaluation, nor even that of William Foxwell Albright. Why are we suspicious of Michael Avi-Yonah? Particularly since there appears to have been no scholarly objection to his translation or to the provenance of the inscription since the find.

PhilosopherJay

Hi mens_sana,

You seem to think that calling for more information about this important archaeological find is somehow improper. Rather, because of its potential importance, we should all demand a great deal more examination of it. If other scholars back up Avi-Yonah's interpretations as to translation and provenance, and offer no alternatives then we can accept it without objection. However, to accept the word of one scholar is not always wise. The fact that he is Jewish and thus disinterested does add some weight to the likelihood of the interpretation being correct. However, all scholars/archaeologists are always under some pressure to increase the importance of there finds.

For example, If X discovers the first archaeological evidence in history of an unknown Judaen town named Nozareth on a tile, he gains a small pat on his back from his department chair for bringing home an ancient tile worth perhaps $1,000. One or two of his colleagues may think the find of interest and cite his name in an article. If he discovers a tile with the first mention in history of a town named Nazareth, his name becomes known in a million churches throughout the world, his opportunities for advancement in his field increase dramatically, and his colleagues are green with eny when he donates a tile worth $1,000,000 to his school or museum's collection.

Until the find has been carefully and fully examined by others in the field who are truly disinterested and have no stake at all in the discovery, it is proper to remain skeptical.

I found this interesting point in an article by a man named Ray Pitts http://jerusalemperspective.com/Defa...ArticleID=1638

The title “Nazarene” may have derived from the town of Nazareth where Jesus grew up, but this is not at all certain. Nazareth is never mentioned in rabbinic - literature nor in any other writing outside the New Testament before its mention by the Hebrew poets of the seventh or eighth century. Its first post-New Testament appearance came with the -discovery of an inscription listing the twenty-four priestly courses. This inscription, found in the summer of 1962 in a synagogue in Caesarea, has been dated to the third or fourth century.1 The spelling of the name is Natsrat, the same as in the much later Hebrew poets.

We also have this from a cite called Utah's Independent media source.
http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/12674.php

XVI. NAZARETH AND EPIGRAPHY


the first written attestation to the existence of a city called nazareth outside of the new testament occurs in a hebrew inscription dated to the III or IV century AD excavated at caesarea maritima in 1958 published in 1962 which apparently mentions nazareth as the seat of one of the 24 priestly courses. I don't yet know what dating methods were used.

the 24 priestly courses were 24 groups of jewish priests who took turns in the service of the jerusalem temple as prescribed by bible numbers 24:1-19.
I gather that after the destruction of the jerusalem temple by the romans in AD 70 and/or after the romans repressed the bar kochba jewish revolt in AD 135 those 24 priestly courses would have left jerusalem & scattered around with one of them possibly ending up in nazareth.

r.riesner in the entry nazaret of the nuovo dizionario enciclopedico illustrato della bibbia nuova edizione 2005 edizioni piemme also tells us about nazareth being first attested to in the "III-IV century" caesarea inscription.
which means 2 to 4 hundred years after "jesus" ' time.
thus the caesarea inscription constitutes no evidence at all that nazareth existed between roughly 6 BC and 33 AD - the time of the alleged jesus.

riesner does not tell us where the caesarea inscription is kept and i haven't found out yet - when i do i'll check it for myself.
but for the time being again even if authentic and correctly interpreted and dated the caesarea inscription only tells us that nazareth existed in the III or IV century AD not in jesus' times.

riesner continues that church father jerome (AD 348-420) and jewish poet eleazar ha-qalir (IX century AD) say that after the bar kochba revolt ie after AD 135 nazareth was the seat of the happizzez priestly course which was the 18th priestly course according to the bible first book of chronicles chapter 24 line 15.
so if jerome and ha-qalir are being accurate which i haven't verified yet what do they tell us?

that nazareth existed after AD 135 when exactly unspecified.
of course in that case it must have already existed some time prior to that unspecified "after 135" - unless the happizzez refounded nazareth themselves.
but since when nazareth may have existed before the happizzez reached it and settled there we cannot say.

therefore again even if combined with the jerome/ha-qalir data the caesarea inscription provides no evidence whatsoever that nazareth existed in "jesus" ' times ie roughly between 6BC and 33AD.

let me furthermore remark that the text of the caesarea inscription mentioning nazareth is hypothetical because the inscription is fragmentary on 3 different pieces of a marble slab and it was reconstructed by michael avi-yonah.
therefore there can be no absolute certainty as to what the original text said.
and again even if yonah correctly reconstructed the original text there is no telling when the happizzez priestly course settled in nazareth therefore again the caesarea inscription is no proof nazareth existed as a city in 'jesus' ' time. see maria-luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/pp 54-56 which include her unproven hypothesis that the happizzez settled in nazareth in the second century BC!...

Before being certain that Nazareth existed in the second century, as this find seems to indicate, I would like to see evidence of the following:
1) How certain is Avi-Yonah's reconstruction. Do these marble pieces fit exactly or are they more or less fragments where perhaps an "Na," an "ts" and an "rat" taken from fragments with no indication that they fit together.
2) How certain are we that Natsrat is equivalent to Nazareth. The theta[th] and the tau[t] in greek are different letters. The last letter in Hebrew, I assume is either tet[t] or taf[t]. How common is it to translate the Hebrew tet or taf into Theta as opposed to Tau. How certain are we that Natsrat is Hebrew for Nazareth.
3) There is a big different between the third, fourth or fifth centuries as far as when the tile was created. If in the third century we can expect that the information is correct. However, if from the fourth or fifth centuries, we have to take into account the fact that Jewish communities were under sharp attack from dominant Christian communities. Could the Jews have been trying to associate themselves with Christianity in some way in order to appease the surrounding Christian community. By saying that ancestors came from Nazareth, they may have made their synagogue more attractive and Christian-friendly. We cannot be certain that the information is correct and not for propaganda purposes.

Without more information on the archaeological evidence, I cannot make a proper resolution of these questions.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

yalla

Gidday PJ,
I too came across that Utah site as I tried to find information re this inscription.
My interest was piqued by the comment that Jerome [4c]and Eleazer ha-qalir [9c] mention the priestly course etc.. How did they know?

Somewhere in my net travels I read that the inscription was dated as late 3rd century to early 4th century.
Let's assume early 3rd and that the priests went to Nazareth after 135CE.
That would mean somebody carved the marble about 150 or more years after the event.
How did they know that information?
Particularly when taking into account the catastrophic nature of the events of 135CE for the Jewish people.

Provenance of information.

I, like you, still want to know more about this inscription.

yalla

It occurred to me that the time span we are looking at probably coincides with Eusebius' tenure as Bishop of Caesarea. So I looked up his "Onomasticon" courtesy of R.Pearse' website to see what Eusebius says about Nazareth.
Here is the entry, make of it what you will.

"749. Nazareth. Matthew 2:23; K. 138:24; L. 278:37.

The Vatican manuscript does not have the "Gospel" division marker before this entry.

Textual variant for Christians in Latin is "Nazorei."

In Historia Ecclesiastica I, 7, 14 Eusebius notes that after the fall of Jerusalem the relatives of Jesus scattered throughout the countryside. It was a Jewish town in the third century. In the 4th century a few shrines were built by Christians but the Jews were dominant. A city Helenopolis was located in the general region, named after Constantine’s mother, but it is never referred to in the Onomasticon any more than the two towns named after his sister Constantia. Origen didn’t know of it. No church was built here by Constantine. First reference to a church is 355 A. D. Paula visited it but no church noted there either (PPT I, 15). It was near Cana (K. 116:4) and Caphernaum (K. 120:2) on the itinerary of Paula. It is adequately located at en Nasireh which was in the region of Legeōn (K. 14:21).

In Interpretation of Hebrew Names "Nazareth, flower or his slip or of cleanness or separate or guardian." In Epistle 46 (Migne PE 22, 49) Jerome’s etymology has "his flower.""

From this site.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...n_03_notes.htm

Edit for spelling