spin

That's partly what this thread is about.

Try, for example, my post #68 starting 4 paragraphs down (to the end).

I argue in this thread that the two forms are from two separate sources.

I have also argued that neither are directly related to Nazareth, though nazarhnos is related to Nazareth through the same source, the Hebrew verb NCR (while nazwraios is from NZR). One would expect a gentilic from Nazareth to be for example nazareQhnos or nazareQaios or nazareQhths etc. To this objection that neither of our terms nazarhnos or nazwraios is derived from Nazareth, as they miss a syllable, scholars have posited that the "-et" representing a feminine ending in Hebrew or Aramaic would be dropped, though I'm left asking for a single independent example.


spin

John Powell

POWELL:
Here you go.

============
ArchaeoLogy
The RaBBiS
& EarLy
Christianity

Eric M. Meyers
& James F. Strange

pg. 56

Nazareth

Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier
than the third century C.E. This likely reflects its lack of
prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.^34 Archaeological
investigations at Nazareth over the years have provided some
important evidences for interpreting the nature of this
Galilean locality.

Judging from the extent of its ancient tombs, Nazareth must
have been about 40,000 square meters in extent, which
corresponds to a population of roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people,
or a small village. The finds of the Fransiscan fathers,
excavating here from 1955 to 1960, imply that the principal
activity of these villagers was agriculture.^35 Nothing in the
finds suggests wealth. Therefore Nazareth would have no
particular claim to fame, which might illuminate the retort of
Nathanael, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
(John 1:46). On the other hand, this small hamlet was not
completely isolated. Josephus mentions Japha (or Yaphia),
one and a half miles southwest of Nazareth, as one of the cities
of Galilee that he fortified (Wars II.26.6). Yaphia is on the

pg. 57

main Roman road that leads from Jerusalem north to
Sepphoris, the capital of Lower Galilee. Nazareth was
therefore close enough to lines of communication that news of
the day would not bypass its residents.

The archaeological finds from this village go back as far as
Abraham, or the Middle Bronze Age. Yet it is not clear that
Nazareth was a settlement for more than a very few families
from Middle Bronze I to Late Bronze II, or just before the
entry of the Israelites into the land. It is in the second century
B.C.E. that extensive remains are to be found, which suggests
that this is the period of the refounding of the village. Pottery
and other objects of all later periods are represented in the
excavations.^36 This implies that the village was less than two
hundred years old in the first century C.E., but that it continued
to be attractive to settlers up to the present.

It is also clear from circumstantial evidence that Nazareth
was a thoroughly Jewish settlement. It has been known for
many years that Nazareth was one of the Galilean towns into
which one of the twenty-four priestly courses resettled after
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. To be acceptable to
priests it would have to be an unmixed city. A poem of Elkalir,
usually dated to the sixth century C.E., mentions Nazareth in
this connection.^37 Fragments of a list of the courses in Elkalir's
order were found engraved on stone at Caesarea and at
Ashkelon.^38 Nazareth is on the Caesarea fragment.

It is not possible to deduce the layout of the village from the
remains so far excavated, nor is it possible to reconstruct the
size and precise plan of any of its houses. Most probably,
arguing from what is known about houses in other ancient
villages, they were composed of small groups of rooms around
a central courtyard. Some houses in Nazareth had two stories.
Nazareth, then perched alongside the hill in a kind of basin
some 345 meters above sea level, would not have been a
particularly impressive sight. Its houses and public buildings
were not more than one might see anywhere in Galilee.
============

POWELL:
I seem to lack a copy of the reference page. Sorry.

John Powell

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Powell

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Although stretching back to '04, the thread has returned and the illogic here should be noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Quote: Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman A claimant responds: " btw, the harder reading (lectio difficilior) principle is used for some of the most ludicrous arguments, and is way overdone, or more precisely proclivi lectioni praestat ardua (the harder reading is to be preferred) The concept of the harder reading principle essentially presupposes errancy, so we reject it as a paradigmic base... To the point that the alex manuscripts often have the harder (which generally means ----- errant, mistaken, historically or geographically or grammatically wrong) reading I will simply add a hardy amen.. those harder readings arose from the incompetent alexandrian scribes who made some of the most scribablly corrupt (cross-outs, double-letters, missing spaces, "corrections",etc ) manuscripts ever seen..." Talking about ludicrous: "The concept of the harder reading principle essentially presupposes errancy". Actually differing readings presuppose errancy.

A perfect example of combining knowledge with lack of wisdom while passing thourgh the realm of illogic.

When there are two differing readings one is original. And in many cases one is true and one is false. A simple example is the true Gadara and the false (errant) Gerash (the pig marathon) in Luke and Mark.

Those who accept the historic Bible (TR, KJB, traditional text) as true have absolutely no errancy issue with the verses, there is no swine marathon.

And the claim that differing readings "presuppose errancy" is simply absurd, it is not even kindergarten logic. The errant readings simply indicate some copyist somewhere goofed. A similar example (also discussed by Origen) is the true Bethabara and the false Bethany.

To say that the existence of a couple of extant corrupt manuscripts (Aleph and B especially) presupposes errancy is totally illogical. The fact that modern textcrit elevates the corrupt manuscripts above hundreds of accurate manuscripts of much greater scribal skill is the modern textcrit's problem (and their evangelical dupes) not that of those of us who have the pure Bible.

1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

While not usually applied to the Bible question, there is a truth that recognizing the couple of corrupt manuscripts have helped many of us to have the true Bible be made manifest among us.

Shalom,
Steven

Zeluvia

If you guys are still around, I have been looking through the Christian apocyrpha for mentions of either Nazareth or Nazarene...

So far, I haven't found any....have I missed something?

Toto

A very interesting question. You often see the claim that "Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature." But I believe that the Apocrypha referred to here are the Jewish literature of the time.

Nazareth is mentioned in the apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter, presumed to have been written in Egypt in the 5th century. I think it may be mentioned in other places. This would not be surprizing and it would not be any indication of whether Nazareth existed in the 1st century.

Minimalist

Certainly it existed by the 5th century. It probably existed in the Second.

That does not mean that a city by that name existed in the early First.

Zeluvia

Well, I am working my way through the Christian Apocrypha, and have not yet found it.

I was wondering if Spin had taken a look at the language variations from the Apocrypha to add it to his analysis of the scriptural evolution of Nazareth.

Thanks for that, I hadn't read History of Joesph the Carpenter, but I failed to find Nazareth in either infancy Gospel, nor in any of the "gnostic" gospels.

But I can only read english = (

Toto

What conclusion would you draw if you found Nazareth in the Apocrypha, or if you didn't? Most of the Apocrypha are dated to the second century, and are regarded as derivative of the canonical gospels, so finding Nazareth would not be unexpected.

Zeluvia

Right, finding Nazareth would be not be unexpected, but so far, I am NOT finding Nazareth.
The site I was using did not have the History of Joseph.

Not sure if there is a conclusion to be drawn, like I said, my original question was about other sources of the language for spin to analyze.

It does seem strange to NOT find it....

And I am not so sure I agree that ALL of the apocrypha is "derivative" of the canon, or dated from the second century.