ApostateAbe

I think Doug Shaver and a lot of us conflate conclusions that follow from probabilistic reasoning with the dogmas of Biblicists, just because those two sets of conclusions may overlap to a limited extent. The dogma of anti-Biblicism is hardly better than the dogma of Biblicism, and I think we should be careful not to let such irrational prejudices prevent us from accepting probable conclusions.

avi

a. irrational

b. probable

I think Doug was right on target.

nor by me....

avi

ApostateAbe

Can you please explain?

beallen041

It strikes me we already have a parallel for the theorized development of Nazareth in response to the story of Jesus.

Harry Potter books have sold in the hundreds of millions, so people have begun to create the places mentioned in them. There is Harry Potter world in Orlando, FL that has a real Hogwarts, a real Hogsmeade, all constructed on the basis of JK Rowling's books and movies. It's not hard to imagine that a future archeologist might find these structures and the books and be able, on the basis of this to "prove" that there was a real Harry Potter.

ApostateAbe

Welcome to the forum, and I am glad you are here. Do you suppose that Hogsmeade would be the closest analogy to Nazareth if Nazareth really was founded in the 2nd century? I predict that such an analogy would hurt more than help, but I do think it is braver and more responsible than no analogy at all.

avi

And I don't mean to quibble here, BUT, in my opinion, the issue is even MORE complicated than what Stephen C. Carlson has written.

Here is just the FIRST (I haven't yet looked at the other citations) reference, to Matthew 2: 23.

Note please that different versions of the same passage have different spellings. In this case, Nazareth versus Nazaret.

Maybe that will be the only example of disharmony among the different editions.

avi

avi

How does anyone know that "Nazareth" was a functioning hamlet/village/town in Galilee, 2000 years ago?

Abe, how do you know what is a "probable conclusion"?

Why should rejection of the hypothesis that contemporary "Nazareth" corresponds to a village of similar name, which has been inhabited continuously for two thousand years, lead one to label such rejection as "irrational prejudice"?

avi

aa5874

How many times are we going to go over the same thing when it is ALREADY KNOWN that there was NO CITY called Nazareth in the 1st century?

Matthew 2:23 - Lu 1:26 - There was simply NO CITY of Nazareth, No prophecy about a City called Nazareth, No mention of a CITY called Nazareth in Hebrew Scripture, No mention of a CITY called Nazareth by Paul, No mention of a City called Nazareth in Acts of the Apostles, or the General Epistles, Hebrews and Revelation, and NO mention of a City called Nazareth by Josephus so just forget about the City of Nazareth.

And Jesus supposedly did NOTHING in the CITY of Nazareth for about 30 years. Jesus' FAME began and spread ONLY when he left the CITY of Nazareth.

Just forget about the City of NAZARETH in the 1st century. Even Christians writers just forgot about the CITY of Nazareth.

Paul mentioned Jesus Christ OVER 300 times and just forgot about the City of Nazareth.

There was NO City of Nazareth in the 1st century.

ApostateAbe

The basic evidence is that we have archaeological evidences for Nazareth in Galilee that can be reliably dated to a range of time overlapping with the alleged time of Jesus, and the gospels refer to it as a city in Galilee. Please remember that the argument would be essentially equal in strength if the gospels were completely fiction.
I think any methodology for historical conclusions would work in this case, but of course I prefer Argument for the Best Explanation. The hypothesis that Nazareth existed is superior in the criteria of explanatory scope, plausibility, and less ad hoc. We don't have many examples of towns being founded post hoc inspired by a mere myth of a town, but we have very many historical small towns being omitted in all historical writings.
Please forgive me for thinking this, but I honestly don't think there is any other plausible explanation for such a conclusion. It fits a certain prejudice but not the evidence. I mean to be defensive, not offensive--Doug Shaver implicitly accused me of being like a Christian dogmatist.

jgoodguy

Archaeological evidence is that some village/hamlet existed at or very near the traditional location of Nazareth. Was it the Nazareth of the gospels or was it even called 'Nazareth' can not be known for certain any more than confusion of names or terms sounding like Nazareth in the mythical oral tradition, original Aramaic by the gospel authors or later mythical interpolators are known for certain.

I personally would bet on the confusion of non Palestinians trying to put the story together after the region had been devastated by the Romans depending on less than credible evidence.