Adonael

Actually, it works like this: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence UNLESS if it were present, then we'd expect to see evidence of its presence.

Adonael

Again, Toto is not saying its true only that it is possible.

]

Huon

From Catholic Encyclopedia, Nazareth
No christian church in Nazareth before Constantine (IIIrd century).
Seems that the Catho Encycl speaks too much...
Adv. Haereses of Epiphanius is usually known as Panarion.

Huon

Matthew 2 23.
(Joseph) came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."


What prophecies ? What prophets ?

spamandham

This isn't a complete listing of the evidence used by jesusneverexisted, and is a gross misrepresentation of why the author of jesusneverexisted proposes that Nazareth is 'the town that theology built'.

Matthew 2:23 explains that Jesus coming from Nazareth was to fulfill the prophecy "that he would be called a Nazorean". Of course, there is no such prophecy in the OT. So where did the gospel writers get this idea? ...from a transliteration error of the prophecy that he would be called a Nazorite.

So from the Gospel writers' perspective, having Jesus come from Nazareth was important from a prophecy fulfillment perspective. So having Jesus come from Nazareth was not just an incidental detail, it was theologically critical. Considering that Mark makes gross geographic errors in regards to Galilee, he was clearly not familiar with the region, and would not be expected to know whether or not Nazareth existed. Of course, there really isn't much reason to presume that Mark would have even cared whether Nazareth existed.

The next major bit of evidence, is that Nazareth had been lost at all and required 'discovery' in the 4th century. Huh? The home town of the central figure of their theology had been 'lost'!? Note that this is not an argument from silence, it's an admission by the early church that even they didn't know where Nazareth was.

The complete argument is then summarized as:
- there was a theological reason to have Jesus come from Nazareth (albeit a bungled reason)
- Mark demonstrated clear unfamiliarity with the geography of the region
- Mark was acting in the role of story writer rather than historian or geographer, as demonstrated by the fantastic nature of the story and the extreme usage of allusions back to the OT
- Outside the Gospels, there is no mention of Nazareth, and this is unexpected, because there are a couple of period listings of cities in the region, and Nazareth is not on them.
- Nazareth been 'lost'. This is also unexpected for such a theologically important location.

That's not true. The usage of 'Nazareth' in the Gospels is part of the argument used by jesusneverexisted.

jesusneverexisted does not make this claim, nor is it important to the argument.

You seem to be admitting now that the case made by jesusneverexisted is not simply a logical fallacy, but rather, that you are unconvinced by it.

That's fine. The case is certainly not airtight, but then, neither is the case that Nazareth did exist. IMHO, jesusneverexisted has put together a well thought out and supported argument in regards to the existence of Nazareth in the first century, and I don't think anyone who looks at it objectively could really deny that.

Huon

Mark 1,9 : came from Nazareth
John 1,45-46 : Jesus of Nazareth
Matthew 2,1 : Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea
Luke 2,15-16 : Bethlehem

aa5874

Based on the facts, as you outlined, it should be obvious that the existence of Nazareth, during the time of Jesus, is doubtful.

Based on the facts, as you outlined, it should be obvious, it is NOT confirmed that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus.

Based on the facts, as you outlined, if Nazareth did not exist during the time of Jesus, there would have been no known non-Christian literary or archaeological evidence.

All places that do not exist have no literary or archaelogical evidence.

Nazareth appears to have satisfied the condtions for non-existence at that time.

There is just no known evidence to support a place called Nazareth, at that time, so a person can reasonably conclude that Nazareth did not exist until further evidence comes to light.

Now, do you have any evidence to shed some light on the existence of Nazareth during the time of Jesus?

No?

Well, it can be reasonably maintained for INFINITY (forever) that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, based on the facts you outlined, or until more information is received.

FathomFFI

The following is the work of Team FFI, a group I work with. We will demonstrate the problems with jesusneverexisted's assertions regarding the literary evidence they use against the purported existence of Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

Above, the author attempts to assert that Nazareth never existed by creating a nice neat list of literary works that do not mention a town called Nazareth. But let's take a look at this list from a logical view point.

It must be understood that the position of jesusneverexisted is that the town of Nazareth as described in the gospels did not exist at the time of Jesus.

1. In regards to Nazareth not being seen in the OT, was this the time of Jesus? The writings for the OT were discontinued at least 600 years previous to the time of Jesus, therefore the OT record cannot be used as evidence against the existence of a town purportedly to exist hundreds of years into its future.

This is logical fallacy # 1, for how can an ancient record hundreds, if not thousands of years before Jesus, be used as a record to help determine that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus? It quite simply cannot.

2. In regards to the Tamud, which Talmud would they like to discuss? The Babylonian, or the Jerusalem? Let's discuss both.

The Babylonian Talmud was not compiled until well into the 5th century CE and was totally transmitted from memory, orally. This is at least 400 years after the purported existence of Nazareth in the Gospels. This can in no way be used as an accurate and complete record of the history of hundreds of years of the Jews. Nor can it be used against any claim that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus because this Talmud itself did not exist anywhere near the time of Jesus, but at least 400 years later. In fact, the final redaction of this Talmud occurred around CE 700!

That is logical fallacy # 2, for how can this Talmud be a historical record when it didn't even exist for 400 years afterwards?

The Jerusalem Talmud began to be compiled not until well into the 3rd century CE, and not finished until well into the 5th century CE. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, this Talmud does not have the status of its Babylonian counterpart because it "has not been preserved in its entirety; large portions of it were entirely lost at an early date, while other parts exist only in fragments. The editio princeps (ed. Bomberg, Venice, 1523 et seq.), on which all later editions are based, terminates with the following remark: "Thus far we have found what is contained in this Talmud; and we have endeavored in vain to obtain the missing portions." Of the four manuscripts used for this first edition (comp. the note at the conclusion of Shab. xx. 17d and the passage just cited), only one is now in existence; it is preserved in the library of the University of Leyden (see below). Of the six orders of the Mishnah, the fifth, Ḳodashim, is missing entirely from the Palestinian Talmud, while the sixth, Ṭohorot, contains only the first three chapters of the treatise Niddah (iv. 48d-51b)."

Therefore, not only is this Talmud late, but totally incomplete. This cannot be used as a means of disproving anything, let alone a town called Nazareth said to exist at least 300 years before this Talmud.

Another logical fallacy, for how can this Talmud be used as a historical record when it is an incomplete work which did not exist until hundreds of years after the time of Jesus?

3. In regards to what St. Paul knew or didn't know about Nazareth, had these guys actually did their homework they would have noticed that Paul is quoted in Acts Chp 26.9 as stating that Jesus came from Nazareth.

And that ends that assertion on the spot. This argument is dismissed.


4. In regards to no ancient historian or geographer mentioning Nazareth, how large is the list that would? Jesusneverexisted only points to Flavius Josephus and for good reason; he's all they have. So Josephus mentions 45 towns and settlements in Gallilee, but does he mention all the towns and settlements of Galliliee and only exclude Nazareth? And has jesusneverexisted checked to see if all the places Josephus mentioned are historically evidenced today?

The problems with this argument are obvious; it is a totally incomplete accounting of what towns existed at the time of Josephus, as well as a failure to demonstrate how many of the towns of Gallilee spoken of by Josephus can still be historically evidenced today.

This argument is therefore rightfully declared an invalid argument from ignorance because the deduction process is grossly incomplete due to the failure of jesusneverexisted to consider all the facts, of which some are far more probable. Another logical fallacy.

- TeamFFI would like to thank all for your time, and we say with tongue in cheek, "A Mac truck just went through the literary assertions, and we will return later to take a bulldozer to the archeological assertions."

Yellum Notnef

Team FFI.
This is just a nitpick, but I find it curious that an scholarly agnostic group looking into the historical Jesus would have a picture of the traditional flowing haired white Jesus up in the clouds on their home page.

FathomFFI

You do understand that Jews at the time were caucasian, just as they are today?