show_no_mercy

Maybe Nazareth wasn't a Jewish town.

ApostateAbe

Nazareth is mentioned in the gospels (dated to the first century) as the hometown of the family of Jesus, the Hebrew name for the town was found on an inscription on a marble fragment for a synagogue around 300 CE (M. Avi-Yonah, "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea." Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962):137-139., via Wikipedia), and the city exists today. This is evidence enough that the town existed in the first century. Yes, it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the first century or before, which indicates that it was only a tiny backwoods hamlet, like so many thousands of other tiny backwoods hamlets that have gone unnoticed by history. That, or it is a fictional town, and a town with the same name was founded ad hoc after the rise of Christiandom in the same location as described in the gospels, which would seem to be the only time such a thing has ever happened in history. I figure René Salm really is a crank.

Toto

Are you saying that the gospels give a clear location for Nazareth? Where is this found?

Is there anything inherently improbably about a location being named after a presumably famous city that previously existed there?

I would like to get you to stop labeling people cranks just because you disagree with them. It's a conversation stopper.

spamandham

...and only the gospels until much later.

It might also indicate that the first gospel author was not from the region, and didn't realize there was no town of Nazareth, perhaps confusing the name of a sect with the name of a city, or perhaps the author simply wished his readers to make that mistake.

ApostateAbe

The three synoptic gospels locate Nazareth in Galilee, the location of the modern Nazareth. See Mark 1:9, Matthew 21:11, and Luke 2:4.
Previously existed only in fiction? The answer is yes. Such a thing has apparently never happened, whatever your expectations may be.
Sorry.

ApostateAbe

Anything is possible, but the evidence and probability are what really count.

aa5874

It is the Gospels story that is being questioned. The Gospels cannot be used as the source to resolve whether there was a CITY of Nazareth.

Nazareth could have been a graveyard during the days of Pilate.

Minimalist

Almost non-existent. A few broken lamps left behind in the tombs but no foundations, walls, garbage dumps or other debris which archaeologists usually find associated with towns.

With Sepphoris on one side and Jotapata on the other the notion that people from either town used the hillsides as tombs cannot be discounted.

When Jotapata was destroyed by the Romans in 67 (after Sepphoris went over to the Romans) it does seem possible that survivors from Jotapata built at what later became Nazareth.

Salm discusses the evidence and also points out that many early xtian writers don't seem to know or care about Nazareth. Perhaps that part of the story was written later?

JoeWallack

JW:

So you read Salm as carefully as you read Doherty. If there were tombs there than it would not have been a Jewish town. Of course, as the Boss said in the classic Scarface, "Not everyone always follows the rules." Once the Gentiles had built over the tombs the Jews may not have known there were tombs there.

As near as I can tell, the only agreement right now is that Nazareth had a hill which was used for tombs. The problem for my speculation is would "Mark's" Roman audience have been aware of a cemetery at Nazareth? Hmmm, "Roman tombs".


Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spamandham

While I certainly agree with this, the evidence is not in question.

The question is, what is the proper interpretation of the evidence. There's nothing particularly improbable with the idea of a non-existent town being used in an otherwise fanciful story, even if we categorize that story as a period biography.