Amaleq13

Is this it?

Ben C Smith

Alas, no. That one is in Greek, not Hebrew, and it is one that I already have on my site. My own online searches always came up with that one because it is usually called the Nazareth inscription. But the inscription itself does not necessarily have anything to do with Nazareth; rather, it was named after an inventory tag found on it specifying that the slab had been shipped from Nazareth at some point.

Nice try, though.

Ben.

Magdlyn

Do you own a copy? Can you quote from it the incontrovertible evidence/remains from early ICE or I BCE? Thanks in advance.


You want I should take it on faith from you? If you own the book please help us out. I don't have access to a research library that might carry it.


Toto's link from 2003 says the baths were enormous...

A large Roman garrison would've been mentioned by Josephus, one would think. Unless it was too late.


If it were a Roman bath for Roman soldiers, I guess the proximity of some old Jewish graves would not be an issue.

Toto

link

Is this a fair summary of this article?

Magdlyn

Funny, Toto. I already posted a version of the paragraph but it left out one word compared to yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

No "Middle" before Roman.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

It seems that the issue of Nazareth and Galilee is quite a political issue. See Setting Jesus Free from Postmodern Reconstructions: Was Jesus a Galilean Jew or a Jewish Hellenist? by Stephen Ortiz, Assistant Professor of Archaeology and Biblical Sciences at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
According to this article, it appears some evangelicals are hoping to find evidence that the current site called Nazareth was Jewish in hopes of fighting the liberal Christians who they believe are painting Jesus as a cosmopolitan Hellenized Jew.

It would be interesting to look at the background of the men currently excavating in the modern Nazareth area and their possible biases.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Future Indefinite

Leaving aside the actual argument for the moment, your tone is of interest. You display the hysterical venom of a Christian stridently defending your supernatural belief system against "amateur Jesus Mythers with an axe to grind".

And yet your profile lists you as atheist. Strange!

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

It would be interesting to look at the same demographics
for the excavators of the Roman catacombs, from as early
perhaps as 365 CE, and Pope Damasius, the first christian
Pontifex Maximus of Rome.

In more recent times we have Giovanni Battista de Rossi (1822-1894).
His Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae of 1857
was printed by the Vatican press.

NB: A later edition of Inscriptiones contained a total of
1374 inscriptions. The first four were scrapped as forgeries,
meaning that the oldest known Christian inscription in Rome
is a memorial to Emperor Caracalla's chamberlain Prosenes.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

It is a brief preliminary announcement.

The only full description in English of the fragments is in a very obscure book. The Teacher's Yoke (or via: amazon.co.uk) a memorial volume for Henry Trantham published by Baylor in 1964. (There may be a full article in Hebrew, I'm not sure.)
pps 42-45 are an Introduction to the fragments and their implications by E Jerry Vardaman followed by pps 46-57 The Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses by Michael Avi-Yonah.

Since this publication is so obscure I'll try and abstract the important points.

Three fragments of a Hebrew inscription on a Marble slab have been discovered at Caesarea. Fragments 1 and 2 found in 1962 in controlled excavations near the remains of the synagogue. Fragment 3 was discovered some years earlier, was photographed but has since disappeared. It is probable but not certain that they all came from the same physical inscription.

Fragment 1 has the putative mention of Nazareth, it was dated by Professor N Avigad to the 3rd or 4th century. (Presumably on Paleographic grounds). According to the excavators account of the history of the synagogue (which IIUC has been challenged by some) a purpose-built synagogue was constructed in the 3rd century destroyed around 360 or slightly earlier and rebuilt nearly a hundred years later. This 5th century rebuilt synagogue seems too late for the inscription which is more likely part of the earlier one. IF the inscription was part of the original construction it would date from the 3rd century.

Fragment 3 reasonably clearly refers to the 15th 16th and 17th priestly courses. Fragment 2 has only 5 letters but in the light of Fragment 3 is probably also referring to priestly courses. Fragment 1 is the critical one.

Line 1 reads MLY(CH)
Line 2 reads N(TZ)R(TH)
Line 3 reads AKLH
Line 4 reads GDL

The only genuinely questionable reading is the N in line 2 which is only half preserved.

At first sight Fragment 1 is unclear. However in Jewish tradition (an early example of which is found in Hebrew texts from the Cairo Genizah) we have a list of the priestly courses and their locations; the relevant part of which reads: Chezir at Mamliach MMLY(CH seventeenth priestly course, Hap (or Hapizzez) at Nazareth N(TZ)R(TH) eighteenth priestly course, Pethachiah Akh AK (or Akhlah AKLH) at Ar (or Arab) nineteenth priestly course, Jehez (or Jehezekel) at Migdal Nunaiya MGDL NWNYH twentieth priestly course.

This allows reconstruction of fragment 1 as
MMLY(CH)
N(TZ)R(TH)
AKLH
MGDL

ie

Mamliach (17th priestly course)
Nazareth (18th priesly course)
Akhlah (19th priestly course)
Migdal (20th priestly course)

Hence despite the small size of the fragments it is reasonably clear that we have here an early (maybe 3rd century) version of the list of the priestly courses which (like the later ones) mentions Nazareth.

Andrew Criddle

Magdlyn

N(TZ)R(TH) ???


Do the parentheses indicate those letters are missing and just assumed? All we really have are N___ R___?

Could it be (as speculated above) ___N___R___? Genesarret. But goodness, if all we have is an N and R, it could be any number of things. No wonder this "explanation" is only found in one obscure text from 1964.

def: purported; commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds;

Presumably?

OK...

Seems... likely? Why? NO evidence to support this?

"IF."


Color me convinced! :grin: