Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 12-12-2006, 03:02 AM

From a mailing list of German biblical scholarship I'm on...

Quote:

Guten Morgen,

seit letzter Woche beschäftigt mich eine Frage in Bezug auf Nazaret,
nachdem mir eine Änderung im entsprechenden Artikel der Wikipedia
aufgefallen ist.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazaret
Im Bereich "Archäologische Befunde" war der Text so formuliert, als könne
es im ersten Jahrhundert gar keinen Ort Nazaret gegeben haben, sondern
nur eine Begräbnisstätte unter diesem Namen. Die Begründung steht nach
wie vor im Text: "Konservative jüdische Kreise jener Zeit hätten ihre
Häuser nie auf oder in unmittelbarer Nähe von Grabanlagen gebaut."

Am Wochenende wurde der Bereich etwas umformuliert; dennoch klingt es
noch immer so, als wäre eine richtige Besiedlung im 1. Jahrhundert eher
unwahrscheinlich.

So wie es jetzt dort steht erscheint mir das eher eine tendenzielle
Beschreibung zu sein, die man etwas neutraler formulieren müsste. Vor
allem aber wären Fakten notwendig. Kennt jemand von Ihnen aktuelle
archäologische Ergebnisse über Nazaret?
Oder ist die Behauptung an sich eher nur ein schlechter Scherz, der aus
Unwissenheit von uns anderen, die das gelesen haben, überlebt hat?

Jemand schrieb mir dazu: "Und Paulus spricht vom Nazoräer - warum sollte
er das als Schriftgelehrter erfinden, wenn er immerhin nicht die
matthäische und lukanische theologische Version mit Betlehem benutzt?"
... um eine mögliche Komponente zu nennen. Zudem meinte er: "diese These
mit dem Friedhof höre ich zum ersten Mal. Auch nach einiger Recherche bin
ich nicht dahinter gekommen, woher das Gerücht stammen könnte." Gibt es
dafür Quellen?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Who can translate, or at least summarize?

--
Peter Kirby

FreezBee · 12-12-2006, 04:11 AM

Umm, I can give it a try

The first paragraph mentions that the text in the Wikipedia article in the section "Archäologische Befunde" ("Archaeological Findings") was formulated so it appeared as if the town Nazaret did not exist in the 1st century, only a cemetary, and that the text claims that conservative Kews never built their houses near a burial ground.

The second paragraph mentions that the text was changed during the weekend, though still with the above implication.

In the third paragraph, the author considers this to be tendentious (POV in Wikipedia lingo), and asks if it maybe is a bad joke.

The last paragraph refers to some other person, who had never heard about the thesis with the cemetary, and who after some research had been unable to find out the origin of this rumor. And the paragraph end with asking, if there are any sources for it.

That is, the poster is critical towards the claim that Nazaret did not exist as a town in the 1st century, only as a cemetary. And he does not know about any source of the claim.

Hope this helps

- FreezBee

rjf · 12-12-2006, 08:35 PM

My German is not as good as it was a few years ago, but here goes:

Good Morning,

Since last week, I have been busy with a question in reference to Nazaert, which became conspicuous? to me after a modification to the corresponding Wikipedia article. Link
In the field? "archeological Findings" the text was formulated as if to say? that there could not have been any place Nazareth in the first century, but rather only a burial place with this name. The reason comes from the text: "Conservative Jewish circles of the time never built homes in direct proximity to grave (layouts/plans, I think this word means just 'graveyards').

Over the weekend the field was unformulated; neverthless, it always seemed right, as if a correct population in the first century was rather unlikely. (i think I screwed that up)

So as it now stands there it seems to me a rather biased (POV) description, that must be neutrally formulated. Above all, facts are necessary. Is anyone familiar withe your (addressing a specific individual) actual archaeological results regarding Nazareth?
Or is the declaration/assertion just a bad joke, made from the ignorance of the rest of us who have read it? (I hate clauses--the gist seems to be, 'a bad joke made at the expense of the rest of us who read the article')

Someone wrote me regarding it: 'And Paul spoke from Nazoraer--why should he invent this as a Scripture scholar, if he didn't use the Matthew-icle and Luke-icle theological versions with Bethlehem anyhow?"
...to name a likely component. Moreover he thinks: "this thesis with the cemetary I'm hearing for the first time. Also after a [Rescherche--I am completely unfamiliar with this term and it is not in my dictionary, but appears to mean 'research'] I am have not come any closer to where the rumor came from. Are there sources for them?

With friendly greetings.

I hope that makes sense in context, because I don't understand most of it.

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

12-12-2006, 04:11 AM	#2
FreezBee Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Southern Copenhagen Posts: 131	Umm, I can give it a try The first paragraph mentions that the text in the Wikipedia article in the section "Archäologische Befunde" ("Archaeological Findings") was formulated so it appeared as if the town Nazaret did not exist in the 1st century, only a cemetary, and that the text claims that conservative Kews never built their houses near a burial ground. The second paragraph mentions that the text was changed during the weekend, though still with the above implication. In the third paragraph, the author considers this to be tendentious (POV in Wikipedia lingo), and asks if it maybe is a bad joke. The last paragraph refers to some other person, who had never heard about the thesis with the cemetary, and who after some research had been unable to find out the origin of this rumor. And the paragraph end with asking, if there are any sources for it. That is, the poster is critical towards the claim that Nazaret did not exist as a town in the 1st century, only as a cemetary. And he does not know about any source of the claim. Hope this helps - FreezBee

12-12-2006, 08:35 PM	#3
rjf Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oklahoma City Posts: 484	My German is not as good as it was a few years ago, but here goes: Good Morning, Since last week, I have been busy with a question in reference to Nazaert, which became conspicuous? to me after a modification to the corresponding Wikipedia article. Link In the field? "archeological Findings" the text was formulated as if to say? that there could not have been any place Nazareth in the first century, but rather only a burial place with this name. The reason comes from the text: "Conservative Jewish circles of the time never built homes in direct proximity to grave (layouts/plans, I think this word means just 'graveyards'). Over the weekend the field was unformulated; neverthless, it always seemed right, as if a correct population in the first century was rather unlikely. (i think I screwed that up) So as it now stands there it seems to me a rather biased (POV) description, that must be neutrally formulated. Above all, facts are necessary. Is anyone familiar withe your (addressing a specific individual) actual archaeological results regarding Nazareth? Or is the declaration/assertion just a bad joke, made from the ignorance of the rest of us who have read it? (I hate clauses--the gist seems to be, 'a bad joke made at the expense of the rest of us who read the article') Someone wrote me regarding it: 'And Paul spoke from Nazoraer--why should he invent this as a Scripture scholar, if he didn't use the Matthew-icle and Luke-icle theological versions with Bethlehem anyhow?" ...to name a likely component. Moreover he thinks: "this thesis with the cemetary I'm hearing for the first time. Also after a [Rescherche--I am completely unfamiliar with this term and it is not in my dictionary, but appears to mean 'research'] I am have not come any closer to where the rumor came from. Are there sources for them? With friendly greetings. I hope that makes sense in context, because I don't understand most of it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.