Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-14-2003, 06:34 AM

There is quite a bit of doubt as to the existence of a town called Nazareth at the beginning of the era. The best I've heard -- no references -- is of an Italian archaeologist called Bagatti who had found cave burials or something cemetery-like in the vicinity, "showing there must have been a town", or somesuch. So traces of a Nazareth are very few and far between, if any.

So, putting aside the archaeological, when was Nazareth first mentioned in literature we can certainly date?

spin

Toto · 12-14-2003, 12:32 PM

If the search function were working, I could locate the thread where this was hashed to death.

In the meantime, check out Nazareth - the town that theology built

Quote:

History and archaeology actually begin to coincide with the discovery of a fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century the stone bares the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 CE. Such groups would only settle in towns without gentile inhabitants, which ruled out nearby Sepphoris. . . .

Bernard Muller quotes Crossan:

Quote:

I quote J.D. Crossan in 'The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant', Chapter 1 "Then and Now", Section 'can anything good come from Nazareth?':

"The very first mention of Nazareth in any non-Christian text comes from a fragmented inscription on a piece of dark gray marble excavated at Caesarea in August of 1962 ... In 70 C.E., during the first Roman-Jewish War, the Temple of Jerusalem got totally destroyed by the future emperor Titus, and, at the end of the Third Roman-Jewish War in 135 C.E., the defeated Jews were expelled from the territory of Jerusalem, renamed Aelia Capitolina by the emperor Hadrian. The surviving priests, divided from ancient times into twenty-four courses that took weekly turns in Temple service, were eventually reorganized and resettled in various Galilean towns and villages. A list of those assignments was affixed to the wall of Caesarea's synagogue built around 300 C.E. The restored line reads: "The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nazareth."

[the inscription is in Hebrew and 'Nazareth' would have been more accurately spelled "Nasareth"]

Bob K · 12-14-2003, 08:05 PM

Frank Zindler has written an essay on the Nazareth problem:

http://atheists.org/church/ozjesus.html

spin · 12-14-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
If the search function were working, I could locate the thread where this was hashed to death.

If you come up with it, I'll be happy to look at it.

Quote:

In the meantime, check out Nazareth - the town that theology built

Thanks for this link. It covers some of the ground that I want to, so it's good to see how someone else deals with the material. My interest will be the linguistic side of the terms nazarenos/nazwraios/nazara/nazaret/nazareQ, but I need to pay a little lip service to the physical evidence.

Quote:

Bernard Muller quotes Crossan:

And perhaps someone knows when first the fathers mention the place name...

spin

the_cave · 12-15-2003, 09:04 AM

It occurred to me that if all this is true, then all the verses in the NT about Jesus coming from Nazareth would have had to have been added in the later 2nd century, at the earliest! No one that I know of has argued this yet...

Toto · 12-15-2003, 11:14 AM

Here's a few more links

The problem of the title Nazarene

As to any mention of Nazareth in the patristics, a brief search of www.earlychristainwritings.com turns up

Tertullian (197-220 CE)

Quote:

The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow;" even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. This fact I have not refrained from mentioning on this account, because it behoved Marcion's Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the Creator's Christ, when he had so many towns in Judaea which had not been by the prophets thus assigned to the Creator's Christ. But Christ will be (the Christ) of the prophets, wheresoever He is found in accordance with the prophets. And yet even at Nazareth He is not remarked as having preached anything new, whilst in another verse He is said to have been rejected by reason of a simple proverb. Here at once, when I observe that they laid their hands on Him, I cannot help drawing a conclusion respecting His bodily substance, which cannot be believed to have been a phantom, since it was capable of being touched and even violently handled, when He was seized and taken and led to the very brink of a precipice. For although He escaped through the midst of them, He had already experienced their rough treatment, and afterwards went His way, no doubt because the crowd (as usually happens) gave way, or was even broken through; but not because it was eluded as by an impalpable disguise, which, if there had been such, would not at all have submitted to any touch.

Origen (203-250 CE) here refers to Jesus of Nazareth but not explicitly to the city of Nazareth but here refers to the city in the context of a comment on Matthew.

spin · 12-15-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the_cave
It occurred to me that if all this is true, then all the verses in the NT about Jesus coming from Nazareth would have had to have been added in the later 2nd century, at the earliest! No one that I know of has argued this yet...

I haven't published it yet and it's a lot more complicated because we only have a latest date for this use of Nazareth according ot this logic.

But then, those people who continue to talk about Jesus of Nazareth are only making statements of belief.

spin

spin · 12-15-2003, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Here's a few more links

The problem of the title Nazarene

I think we've seen most of Donnini's stuff in various forms elsewhere.

Quote:

As to any mention of Nazareth in the patristics, a brief search of www.earlychristainwritings.com turns up

Tertullian (197-220 CE)

This seems very interesting and requires digesting.

Tertullian is writing at the turn of the third century, so the town Nazareth idea is well entrenched during his time.

Quote:

Origen (203-250 CE) here refers to Jesus of Nazareth but not explicitly to the city of Nazareth

"The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, ... Nathanael ... says to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus the son of Joseph, from Nazareth."

I would think that the final phrase is relatively clear, don't you? But it's not surprising given Tertullian already knowing of Nazareth, as is the quote you give below:

Quote:

but here refers to the city in the context of a comment on Matthew.

Thanks again. It all helps give a clear picture.

spin

Bob K · 12-15-2003, 11:18 PM

Inre:

Quote:

The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, ... Nathanael ... says to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus the son of Joseph, from Nazareth."

... Thomas Paine challenged priests and scholars to find a quote in the Old Testament that prophesized "Jesus of Nazareth" which would translate as "J would be from/of the city of Nazareth."

Has anybody found such a quote?

spin · 12-16-2003, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob K
Inre:

... Thomas Paine challenged priests and scholars to find a quote in the Old Testament that prophesized "Jesus of Nazareth" which would translate as "J would be from/of the city of Nazareth."

Has anybody found such a quote?

It is most likely that a reference in Judges (13:5) concerning the birth of Samson is what was meant. It actually refers to the state under which a Jew undertaking a vow must remain, "the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from birth". This word, Nazirite ("(someone) separated"), has been taken by a writer in Matthew 2:23, as related to the town of Nazareth.

spin

12-14-2003, 06:34 AM	#1
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	When is Nazareth first mentioned in datable literature? There is quite a bit of doubt as to the existence of a town called Nazareth at the beginning of the era. The best I've heard -- no references -- is of an Italian archaeologist called Bagatti who had found cave burials or something cemetery-like in the vicinity, "showing there must have been a town", or somesuch. So traces of a Nazareth are very few and far between, if any. So, putting aside the archaeological, when was Nazareth first mentioned in literature we can certainly date? spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2003, 08:05 PM	#3
Bob K Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Durham, NH USA Posts: 5,933	Frank Zindler has written an essay on the Nazareth problem: http://atheists.org/church/ozjesus.html

12-15-2003, 09:04 AM	#5
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	It occurred to me that if all this is true, then all the verses in the NT about Jesus coming from Nazareth would have had to have been added in the later 2nd century, at the earliest! No one that I know of has argued this yet...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.