Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-22-2003, 02:03 PM

Is this where Jesus bathed?

The answer, of course, is no. The baths would have been used by the Roman forces.

And this has nothing to do with Jesus, and cannot be used to prove or disprove his existence. But it could change some assumptions about the year 1 and the Roman Empire of that period.

On the other hand, it is not clear to me that the current city of Nazareth can be identified as a town of that name from Galilee of that period that has continuously existed, or how you would even attempt to prove this.

Quote:

Professor Richard Freund, an academic behind important Holy Land digs at the ancient city of Bethsaida, near Tiberias, and Qumran in the Jordan Valley, says the significance of the find cannot be overstated. Over the summer he put aside other excavation projects to concentrate on the Nazareth site. "I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus," he says, "and the consequences of that for archaeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous."

Freund's confidence has been shored up by radar and ground-penetrating surveys his team carried out showing the floor of another, older bathhouse under the one excavated by Shama. He hopes to use carbon-dating to establish whether the upper or lower bathhouse is Roman.

. . .

Freund, of the Maurice Greenberg Centre for Judaic Studies at Hartford University in Connecticut, says the discovery means that historians will have to rethink the place and significance of Nazareth in the Roman empire and consequently the formative experiences of Jesus. It has been assumed that the Nazareth of 2,000 years ago was a poor Jewish village on the periphery of the empire, where local families inhabited caves on the hillside that today contains the modern Israeli-Arab city. On this view, the young Jesus would have had little contact with the Romans until he left Nazareth as an adult; his father, Joseph, one of many craftsmen in the town, may have worked on a Roman palace at nearby Sephori.

But the huge scale of Shama's bathhouse suggests that Nazareth, rather than Sephori, was the local hub of military control from Rome. The giant bath could only have been built for a Roman city or to service a significant garrison town. . . .

Gooch's dad · 10-22-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto

On the other hand, it is not clear to me that the current city of Nazareth can be identified as a town of that name from Galilee of that period that has continuously existed, or how you would even attempt to prove this.

I think that if anything, this find proves that the site that is now called Nazareth could not be the Nazareth of 2000 years ago. If Nazareth was large enough to host Roman soldiers, then Josephus would not have overlooked it in his list of the towns and villages of Judea and Galilee.

-Kelly

Vorkosigan · 10-22-2003, 03:31 PM

I totally agree. Josephus flitted back and forth through this area.

It is more likely that the bath postdates the first century.

Doctor X · 10-22-2003, 04:39 PM

Well . . . consider this progress . . . we moved from an Ossary stored on a toilet to a bath.

Perchance a bidet is next?

Sadly, everytime someone finds something in the area the "question" of whether or not some figure visited it will attract popular attention. It reminds me of a historian way back that observed if you added up all the inns that George Washington "slept in" you would have to conclude he spent the entire Revolutionary War sleeping!

--J.D.

aikido7 · 10-22-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Is this where Jesus bathed?

The answer, of course, is no. The baths would have been used by the Roman forces.

What evidence is there to suggest Rome had (or would even WANT) an outpost in such a jerkwater place?

I have been under the (mistaken?) impression that Galilee was no Las Vegas and is not even listed on some ancient maps.

Bernard Muller · 10-22-2003, 09:50 PM

"I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus," he says, "and the consequences of that for archaeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous."

Same story: no evidence about dating, and already speculation about Jesus & Mary taking a bath over there.
Why? I think it is to attract funds for the excavation from the Christian side.
But then, doing that, the deck is loaded, and a controversy is ready to start!

Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X · 10-23-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Why? I think it is to attract funds for the excavation from the Christian side.

AND to attract religious tourists!

--J.D.

-DM- · 10-23-2003, 12:02 PM

. . . which reminds me of a cartoon printed years ago in Free Inquiry (I think) in connection with an article regarding the historical Jesus.

An artisan was getting ready to carve into the face of a rock hill. Nearby was a sign: "Coming Soon, the Really, Really, Really True Actual Tomb [of Jesus]."

-Don-

Tellurian · 10-27-2003, 04:04 PM

If the evidence shows that Nazareth was a Roman outpost for soldiers, does that tend to add more credibility to the stories that Jesus was the illegitimate son of the Roman soldier Pantera?

Toto · 10-27-2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tellurian
If the evidence shows that Nazareth was a Roman outpost for soldiers, does that tend to add more credibility to the stories that Jesus was the illegitimate son of the Roman soldier Pantera?

I doubt it. The charge of illegitimacy seems to be a later libel or inversion of the Christian myth.

10-27-2003, 04:04 PM	#9
Tellurian Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 93	Bath If the evidence shows that Nazareth was a Roman outpost for soldiers, does that tend to add more credibility to the stories that Jesus was the illegitimate son of the Roman soldier Pantera?

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

10-22-2003, 03:31 PM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I totally agree. Josephus flitted back and forth through this area. It is more likely that the bath postdates the first century.

10-22-2003, 04:39 PM	#4
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Well . . . consider this progress . . . we moved from an Ossary stored on a toilet to a bath. Perchance a bidet is next? Sadly, everytime someone finds something in the area the "question" of whether or not some figure visited it will attract popular attention. It reminds me of a historian way back that observed if you added up all the inns that George Washington "slept in" you would have to conclude he spent the entire Revolutionary War sleeping! --J.D.

10-22-2003, 09:50 PM	#6
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	"I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus," he says, "and the consequences of that for archaeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous." Same story: no evidence about dating, and already speculation about Jesus & Mary taking a bath over there. Why? I think it is to attract funds for the excavation from the Christian side. But then, doing that, the deck is loaded, and a controversy is ready to start! Best regards, Bernard

10-23-2003, 12:02 PM	#8
-DM- Honorary Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Coast Posts: 5,714	. . . which reminds me of a cartoon printed years ago in Free Inquiry (I think) in connection with an article regarding the historical Jesus. An artisan was getting ready to carve into the face of a rock hill. Nearby was a sign: "Coming Soon, the Really, Really, Really True Actual Tomb [of Jesus]." -Don-

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.