Toto

New Discovery from Nazareth to be announced

Just a few hours from now. . .

A new find at Nazareth announced on Christmas week? Coincidence?

ApostateAbe

What could it possibly be? Jesus' birth certificate? That would be gold, but I would say chances are it is something boring. Nazareth at the time of Jesus was very likely too poor, small, rural and undeveloped to leave anything that could be preserved, except maybe a few stone or metal tools?

Steven Carr

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...R3edModbbeWmYA

NAZARETH, Israel — Israeli archaeologists have uncovered a home dating to the time of Jesus in the town of Nazareth where he is said to have spent the better part of his life, the antiquities authority said on Monday.

The remains were found near the Basilica of the Annunciation, built on the ruins of three earlier churches on the site where Christians believe Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she would give birth to Jesus.

"The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus," Yardenna Alexandre, who is heading the excavation, said in a statement.

"The building that we found is small and modest, and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period."

The discovery comes days before more than one billion Western Christians celebrate Christmas in honour of the birth of Jesus in a manger in Bethlehem, just south of Jerusalem.

He is believed to have spent most of his life in and around the northern town of Nazareth, where Mary and her husband Joseph lived.

yalla

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Ea...playMode=print

"In the excavation a large broad wall that dates to the Mamluk period (the fifteenth century CE) was exposed that was constructed on top of and "utilized" the walls of an ancinet building. This earlier building consisted of two rooms and a courtyard in which there was a rock-hewn cistern into which the rainwater was conveyed. The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE). In addition, several fragments of chalk vessels were found, which were only used by Jews in this period because such vessels were not susceptible to becoming ritually unclean.

Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it. The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, "Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE".

PhilosopherJay

This is not science, but biblical pseudo-science.

1. What is the evidence that this house dates from that 4 B.C.E. to 36 C.E.?
2. What is the evidence that this town was ever named Nazareth in the time of Jesus?

If the first piece of evidence holds up, the second is still problematical.

It is like finding a meteorite and claiming that this proves a Martian invasion in H.G. Wells' time and therefore Wells' "War of the Worlds" is a true story. First you have to prove that the meteorite is from Mars. Then you still have to find some proof that there were Martians. Those are the easy parts. Once you have found the Martians and the meteorite, then the hard part comes of proving the invasion was real and not just a story made up by H.G. Wells.



Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

yalla

The bolded excerpts above suggest dates
[a] the first and second century. A fairly large expanse of time
[b] the same broad period, I assume?
[c] a degree of uncertainty
[d] some 30 plus years later than the purported era of JC and seemingly not necesarily related to settlement.

Maybe there is some other information that more readily identifies settlement during the 30s?

ApostateAbe

Quite a conclusion you have drawn there, PhilosopherJay. You know from a press release that this isn't science, it is Biblical pseudo-science, because their evidence was not contained in a press release. How did you make such a conclusion so quickly? Do you happen to be of the leaning that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus? For many reasons beside this one, I suggest you rethink that position if it applies.

show_no_mercy

What's the evidence that Nazareth existed in the late 1st century BCE?

misterjingo

That is interesting. I was reading the Yahoo news article about the find and they said that
So there is a difference of 100 years. Is the time frame of the "Early Roman Period" in dispute?

ApostateAbe

The modern existence of Nazareth in Galilee, the archaeological citations of Nazareth in the third century, and the first-century Christian gospels that locate Nazareth in Galilee (despite a known Christian interest to locate Jesus as from Bethlehem). The evidence works together to the conclusion that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus. I know that the skeptics claim that Nazareth didn't exist because it is described as a larger city in the Christian gospels and there is no record of it prior to the third century, but that is easily explained by Nazareth being just a small town and the Greek Christian authors making things up with only the name and geographical location of the town. That fits the mainstream way of thinking about the Christian gospels. And the theory that Nazareth didn't exist fits the theory that the gospels are 100% fictional. Well, in light of this new potential evidence, I say prepare to have more egg on your face.