Originally Posted by Malachi151

I would also add that the New Testament is MORE INNACURATE than the Old Testament. The New Testament is also easier to verify, though it makes less important claims from a truely historical perspective, meaning that the NT doesn't really tell us anything about history like the OT does, which goes into information about the existance of various tribes, wars, kings, important locations, and cultural events, etc.

Originally Posted by gregor

contra Malachi -

The "no Nazareth" position is (IIRC) based upon the fact that Joe didn't list it among the hundreds of other towns he did list - but its existence circa 6 CE is not without mainstream defenders / arguments.

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I'd like to see those arguments, and it isn't just that Josephus didn't list it, there are a few other lists from which it is absent as well.

Again, I'd like to see the evidence.

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus. Also, there is nothing I have seen in Luke or Mark that is contradicted by the physical evidence available (i.e. even if we reject the evidence there is, we still have no evidence against what they say was there, while if we accept the evidence there is, what they say was there appears to have indeed been there).

Perhaps one might still dispute whether this town was called "Nazareth" in the time of Jesus, but it is extremely improbable that Christians could have successfully renamed it in time for the Jews to accept it as the town's name in a 3rd century inscription identifying Nazareth as a town receiving priests in the late 1st century. Jews would not let heretics rename a Jewish town after a blasphemous mythic hero's birth place, nor would they accept such a name change even if the Christians persisted. Thus, the fact that Jews had no problem with the name in the 3rd century, in reference to an event that took place there in the late 1st century, argues against the town being called anything other than Nazareth in the early 1st century.

Finally, I really don't understand this nonsense about Josephus not mentioning the town. He says there were 240 cities in Galilee. He does not even come close to naming them all.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You might be interested in reviewing what Richard Carrier noted in an earlier thread and

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

From the other side of the fence, may I endorse this comment whole-heartedly? Nothing is more irritating that a weenie who is absolutely certain about things that no scholar knows, and asserts that all scholars endorse what in fact he merely half-remembers from somewhere.

As an example: If someone tells me that in the 17th century a manuscript of Josephus existed that did not contain the longer passage about Jesus, that is interesting to me as a manuscripts buff, and I am irritated if I find that the person saying it clearly merely read it somewhere, he knows not where, and can't or won't say. BUT if this person goes further, and is saying this in order effectively to say, "this proves Christianity is untrue" -- or something equally controversial --, but still has no idea whether it is so, most people are not irritated: they simply call him a liar, and his remarks are merely defamatory. No-one is served by this.

(NB: no such manuscript seems ever to have existed, although the myth-makers refer to Isaac Voss knowing about it. The utter certainty with which some people assert that it did, based on a bit of nonsense online, is breath-taking!)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally Posted by youngalexander

There was a long and vituperative thread involving Carrier, spin and others as I recall.