Amaleq13

Only because an effort to "expand" on the face value of the text entirely misses the point of a claim based solely on that face value.

Ben C Smith

I am all in favor of getting more information (and indeed I have searched the internet quite a bit trying to find the original Hebrew so as to present it on my website).

But, to clarify, I did not directly use this inscription as evidence for the existence of Nazareth in century I. I simply said (or at least meant) that the town existed before the inscription was made.

Ben.

Magdlyn

As my original post referred to a village called Nazareth as being a "probably fictional" element in a 1st century gospel, the existence of a 3rd-5th (?) century mosaic inscription mentioning (perhaps fictional) Judaean priests' families living there is a bit irrelevant.

Ben C Smith

This is why I asked you which scenario you espoused. See post #180.

I was trying to get you to answer the natural question of how or why somebody ending up making good on the fiction. If somewhere in the world a community came into being that called itself Gotham City, I would naturally wonder about how or why this city got its name, and the connection, if any, to the fictional Gotham City in the comic books.

I am sorry you see this as irrelevant, but I for one certainly think it is pertinent.

Ben.

Amaleq13

What reason is there to suspect the inscription is fictional? It isn't a Christian mosaic.

Magdlyn

Well, I am not exactly sure what you mean by "making good on the fiction." I suppose, from what I've read on the speculation on the subject, the tales floating around prev to Mark being written were that Jesus was a Nazorean (whatever the Hebrew/Greek for this was). Which is someone who has made some sort of ascetic vow, as I understand it.

Jesus makes a statement about not drinking wine near the end of at least one gospel which seems to allude to this. Perhaps even depictions of him as long-haired also relates to this, but don't hold me on that one.

I'm not a scholar and am not prepared to cite 15 links or tomes which address this. I'm sure Toto could find a link here to prev discussions on the subject.

Nazorean became, of Nazareth when Jesus was historicized. In fact, iirc, in at least on Bible I have, in one or some of Paul's letters, he calls Jesus "the Nazorean," but the translators put it as "of Nazareth."

IMO, there is similar confusion about Mary the Magdalene, who some want to call Mary of Magdala. Luke 8:2 had her as "Mary called Magdalene."

Magdlyn

I addressed that in post#209 and PJ also addressed it.

Ben C Smith

There is a whole discussion to be had about the relationship of the terms Nazoraean, Nazarene, Nazarite, and Nazareth. But this is not that discussion. The term Nazareth, as the name of a town, appears in various places in the gospels as the place from which Jesus hailed.

If, on your view, the town of Nazareth was a fictional place (that is, it existed as a town only in the gospels, not in reality) at the time the gospels were written (or completed, or edited, or whatever), then what I want from you is your explanation for the name Nazareth appearing as a town on a later inscription. This is what I wanted all along.

If you are going with the suggestion that Jay made (to wit, that the Jews used the fictional name Nazareth on their inscription to appease the Christians), just say so. That is all I am asking.

Ben.

Amaleq13

You did nothing but suggest it was fiction and Jay offered an unsubstantiated speculation (and, IMO, not terribly credible absent any support) about why it might have been fabricated but neither of you offered any reason to suspect it to be a fraud.

Antipope Innocent II

Archaeologists in Israel, many of them Jewish, who have excavated First Century sites in Nazareth and who are currently excavating a First Century bath-house there, would be amused to find that some people are still perpetuating this crap about Nazareth being fictional.

Zvi Gal, in his survey of sites in Galilee Lower Galilee During the Iron Age (or via: amazon.co.uk), Dr Richard A. Freund, who is currently excavating a First Century site in Nazareth, and other archaeologists such as Fanny Vitto and Nurit Feig have all done research to make it quite clear that Nazareth was not fictional.

Who still tries to perpetuate this idea? Frank Zindler, a biologist, and Rene Salm, a former piano teacher, both push this outdated crap on the internet. And that's about it.

So who should we believe Magdlyn? The archaeologists, most of them Jews, who have actually excavated the site or a couple of amateur Jesus Mythers with an axe to grind?

Who do you believe?