Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GaryP · 11-14-2009, 08:54 PM

I have read that there is scant archaeological evidence that the place existed in the 1st century...nor much if any mention of the town by contemporaneous writers.

what is the current consensus on this issue?

spamandham · 11-14-2009, 09:07 PM

Who cares what the consensus is? Let the evidence reign.

GaryP · 11-14-2009, 09:08 PM

and that evidence is??

Toto · 11-15-2009, 01:24 AM

Please see this thread Nazareth and James Randi

GaryP · 11-15-2009, 05:04 AM

thanks

JoeWallack · 11-15-2009, 02:06 PM

JW:
The best evidence for the existence of Nazareth right now looks like tombs:

Nazareth, Faith, and the Dark Option—an Update

Quote:

For the standard scenario of Christian beginnings, the existence of tombs directly under the Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth is a particularly distressing issue, one emphasized in my book. That massive church (the largest Christian structure in the Middle East) is a prime destination of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. There, the Blessed Virgin allegedly received the annunciation from the Archangel Gabriel. For the faithful, tombs have no place under that structure because, according to Jewish religious law (Torah), Jews could not live in the vicinity of tombs, which are a prime source of ritual impurity. So, the Mishna (an ancient commentary on Jewish law) mandated that tombs must be located outside the village proper. Thus, tombs under the house of Mary have largely been denied by the tradition.

However, The Myth of Nazareth (Chapter Five) devotes many pages to various tombs under the Church of the Annunciation, and notes that several of them have not been denied by a number of archaeologists. Ken Dark also seems to appreciate that the tombs are undeniable. So, in the 2008 BAIAS, he offers a new twist on Nazareth history, one which cleverly accommodates both the tombs in the Venerated Area and the presence of the Holy Family. He suggests that early Nazareth was a two-stage affair. The first stage (Nazareth at the time of Jesus) was an agricultural village, apparently lacking tombs. Then, in the second century CE, the Nazarenes began to construct tombs on the hillside. Thus, the tombs detectable under the Church of the Annunciation do not affect the story of Mary—those tombs didn’t yet exist when she lived.

At first it seems like a clever scenario, but a little thought shows that Prof. Dark is hardly doing the tradition a favor by advocating this line of thinking. On the contrary, by insisting that the Nazareth tombs came later, Dark also dates the wealth of artefacts found in those tombs to post-Jesus times. If anything, his line supports the view argued in my book, for I demonstrate that the post-Iron Age tombs at Nazareth are post-Jesus (i.e., Middle Roman and later), and that the wealth of pottery found in them is also later. Thus, Dark strongly supports a case for Nazareth in post-Jesus times, while impoverishing a case for Nazareth in the time of Jesus by excluding from consideration all the evidence found in the tombs. Hey, with enemies like Dark, who needs friends?

As Salm points out, if there were tombs there than there would not have been a town there.

If the Nazareth that "Mark" was referring to was a cemetery than we have a nice Ironic balance with the beginning and ending of "Mark":

Mark 1

Quote:

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

At the beginning Jesus comes from the dead (the tombs @ Nazareth). Nothing else is known about him.

Verses:

Mark 16

Quote:

6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

At the ending Jesus comes from the dead (the tomb). Nothing else is known about him except that he is going back to where he came from.

My thought that "Mark" intended Nazareth to refer to tombs is speculative but as we can be certain that "Mark" is primarily fiction and that he employs the literary technique of Ironic balancing many times, it is good speculation. I would even go so far as to say that when looking for possible explanations in this situation for "Mark", a figurative one, such as I offer here, is to be preferred to a possible historical one for the reasons I give here.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

aa5874 · 11-15-2009, 04:48 PM

The problem is that in the NT, it is claimed that Jesus was from or lived in the CITY of Nazareth.

Records of a 1st century CITY called Nazareth in Judea have not been found.

Mt 2:23 -

Quote:

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Lu 2:39 -

Quote:

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

spamandham · 11-16-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

If the Nazareth that "Mark" was referring to was a cemetery than we have a nice Ironic balance with the beginning and ending of "Mark":

Mark 1

At the beginning Jesus comes from the dead (the tombs @ Nazareth). Nothing else is known about him.

That is an interesting twist. It could be the case if Mark is 2nd century, which I believe it is for other reasons.

maryhelena · 11-16-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The best evidence for the existence of Nazareth right now looks like tombs:

If the Nazareth that "Mark" was referring to was a cemetery than we have a nice Ironic balance with the beginning and ending of "Mark":

Mark 1

At the beginning Jesus comes from the dead (the tombs @ Nazareth). Nothing else is known about him.

Verses:

Mark 16

Quote:

6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

At the ending Jesus comes from the dead (the tomb). Nothing else is known about him except that he is going back to where he came from.

My thought that "Mark" intended Nazareth to refer to tombs is speculative but as we can be certain that "Mark" is primarily fiction and that he employs the literary technique of Ironic balancing many times, it is good speculation. I would even go so far as to say that when looking for possible explanations in this situation for "Mark", a figurative one, such as I offer here, is to be preferred to a possible historical one for the reasons I give here.

Interesting indeed - but what one would expect if one is looking at the gospel storyline as being non-historical.

The use of Nazareth because it was a place of tombs, a place of burial, does, to my mind, tie in with the whole dying and rising god mythology. In which case Nazareth could well be symbolic of that element of the Jesus of Nazareth storyline: Mythological 'roots' in Nazareth - the Divine Conception. The 'birth' in David's city of Bethlehem - a prophetic interpretation.

Of course, once Joseph and Mary are viewed as non-historical - then one does not have to find a Nazareth that was inhabited as a village during the gospel time line. Instead, one can let the Nazareth tombs shed light on what the gospel storyline is attempting to convey....Nazareth as an 'embarrassment' not because it was some nondescript village - but because anyone coming from Nazareth was someone coming back from the dead! (i.e. the dying and rising god mythology)

GakuseiDon · 11-16-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

As Salm points out, if there were tombs there than there would not have been a town there.

I've never understood Salm here.

As you've said, he claims there could have been no settlement at the time of Jesus because there were tombs there. Yet according to his website:
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

The Myth of Nazareth shows that the village came into existence not earlier than 70 CE (the climax of the First Jewish War), and most likely in early II CE

So, had the tombs disappeared? Why did Nazareth come to be built on tombs? Or if the tombs had been built later, why were tombs built next to the town? I've read his website and I don't know how he addresses this.

11-14-2009, 08:54 PM	#1
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	Nazereth?? I have read that there is scant archaeological evidence that the place existed in the 1st century...nor much if any mention of the town by contemporaneous writers. what is the current consensus on this issue?

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

11-14-2009, 09:07 PM	#2
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Who cares what the consensus is? Let the evidence reign.

11-14-2009, 09:08 PM	#3
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	and that evidence is??

11-15-2009, 01:24 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Please see this thread Nazareth and James Randi

11-15-2009, 05:04 AM	#5
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	thanks

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.