beallen041

Thanks for the welcome.

I don't think there necessarily is an analogy to first century Nazareth, as I haven't studied the archaeology of the area myself at all. However, I think it is clear that the historical record outside of the Gospels for the existence of this place is sparse, and it becomes much more reported after the visit of St. Helena in the 4th century, which would be when the Hogsmeade analogy would be much more accurate.

Clearly the place described in the gospels had a synagogue, as this is the only structure mentioned by the synoptics and the place noted by archaeology lacks this feature, so there is no one to one correspondence. It's like finding a Hogsmeade without a butterbeer house. Also the construction of the Florida Hogsmeade is close in time to the publication of Harry Potter +/- a few years, the equivalent of the Nazareth in the first century.

DCHindley

Judge: "What's that on the defendent's shoe?"

Witness 1: "Jello"

Witness 2: "Geletin"

Judge: "As the witnesses cannot agree, there is nothing the defendent's shoe can tell us."

DCH

ApostateAbe

You seem to have misunderstood my meaning, but I am not entirely sure what you mean, either.

ApostateAbe

Cool. Like I said, it is a brave and responsible proposition. So, I figure that there would be a minimum requirement for such a hypothesis. I would strongly expect a persisting Christian shrine in Nazareth that can be dated to the 2nd century that corresponds to either the house of the reputed family of Jesus or the synagogue where Jesus as a child reputedly taught. Since the whole purpose for the founding of Nazareth was to appeal to Christian immigrants per your theory, then the ancient Christians would be strongly interested in creating such a landmark. I actually don't know whether such a thing exists in Nazareth, and I wouldn't completely rule it out, but I think such a theory makes such a prediction that we can put to the test. Are we in agreement?

beallen041

Again, I would think the critical point would be after St. Helena came through Palestine in the 4th century. I would agree that such landmarks should be seen by then.

What is your explanation for the lack of a synagogue in any layer of Nazareth archaeology, if we assume the Gospels include a historical core?

DCHindley

Ditto.

DCH

ApostateAbe

OK, 4th century, then, not 2nd century. Do you agree that we would expect either the reputed house of Jesus or the reputed synagogue?
Basically, they made it up. They apparently believed as if Nazareth was a sizable city (only cities had synagogues), but Nazareth was a small town, and the Markan community didn't know that. They only knew:

(1) It was the hometown of Jesus.
(2) It was in Galilee.

If Jesus didn't talk so much about Nazareth, then that is all they would be expected to know. The most likely reason the Markan Christians knew those two facts is that men were identified by their regions and cities of origin. The title of Jesus was "Jesus of Nazareth."

ApostateAbe

Anything I can do to clarify?

DCHindley

Abe, I took you to mean that the matter is so confused there is no point in trying to pick it apart. I agree it is confused, for many of the reasons you cited, but I do not think it is a lost cause. I am pretty sure something can be recovered, it just won't be the whole kit and kaboodle.

DCH

ApostateAbe

Thanks for clarifying. My meaning was more along the lines of that the many pronunciations and spellings of "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" were no more than the arbitrary guesses of the ancient Christians as the name was many times transliterated from Aramaic to Greek and it evolved in Greek. The explanation for the "τ" at the end of "Ναζαρέτ" has about the same explanation as the "θ" at the end of "Ναζαρέθ." It has nothing to do with anything specific about the character profiles of each author. It has to do with some bozo who was told a "τ" but he thought it sounded like a "θ," or vice-versa. There was no common way to spell or pronounce "Nazareth" or "Nazarene," and that is the kind of linguistic evolution and diversity that we expect in such a culture given a name from a starkly different language that nobody had heard before in their lives. That isn't to say you shouldn't try to explain the details of the diverse spellings with an elegant theory that works, but I certainly would not predict success.