Jayhawker Soule

Again, Clutch, can you think of any scholar who would "call divinity criterial" when discussing historicity?

Bede

Consequent,

The non-prophecy is partly what elevates it. It suggests Matt was stuck with the Nazereth connection and wanted to make something of it. Remember, the prophecies said Bethlehem and Luke and Matt go to great efforts to have Jesus born there although they cannot get away from the fact Jesus actually came from Nazereth. IOW, if Jesus was made up they would have avoided the Nazereth connection all together and stuck with Bethlehem as the much better location for a 'messiah' figure to come from.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vinnie

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It can be argued that there are hints in the text that birth in Nazareth goes against the grain of Matthew and Luke and even John. Bethlehem would probably have been the preferred choice for wholesale creators but history wouldn't allow Matthew and Luke to eliminate Nazareth.

Of course many here might replace "history" with "Mark" in relation to GMatthew and GLuke but all four Gospels and Acts mention Nazareth. There is independent attestation in there and I certainly do not know of a valid reason why Mark (5 references to Nazareth) or John would create that detail. Mark may very well have been content with Nazareth being Jesus' hometown but I do not see Mark as a wholesale creator choosing Nazareth. One of Mark' references has Jesus coming back to his hometown and facing criticism and Mark and these hometown disputers seem to show no evidence whatsoever of Bethlehem birth.

John 1:46 also says: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip. " This is another reference (independent of the synoptics) which shows that Nazareth can be argued to have been against the grain.

Crossan offers a brief discussion on the excavation of Nazareth in the HJ, pp. 15-19. Toto is correct in that some posit Capernaum as the hometown.

I am pretty sure I am. When discussing the Birth At Bethlehem in 'The Birth of the Messiah', Raymond Brown had this to say (p.513), "The overwhelming evidence to the contrary has made the thesis that Bethlehem was not the historical birthplace of Jesus the communis opinio of New Testament scholarship."

Brown goes on to say in a footnote that the moajority of those who reject Bethlehem birth (virtually all critical scholars) opt for Nazareth as the birthplace. A few (Stegemann) see the Nazareth connection as historicized theologoumenon stemming from a misunderstanding of the title "the Nazorean" and opt for capernaum (Kennard). once in a while a maverick suggestion like Chorazin is encountered. The majority favor Nazareth though, hands down. Bethlehem is considered highly dubious.

Vinnie

Vinnie

There is nothing to argue here.

Vinnie

Celsus

Could someone who does believe that Jesus came from Nazareth explain how Iesous Nazoraios ever meant "Jesus of Nazareth? Considering the strange silence of the Gospels and Acts about the Essene movement, it's a fairly simple task of realising that the Ebionim "the Poor" / Nazoreans in Acts are functionally identical to the Essenes of Josephus, and with such overlapping custom, language, and style that if they were separate entities, their ignorance of the existence of the other groups are inexplicable. It is reasonable to posit that Ebionim, Nazoreans and Essenes are all branches from the same root. In other words, Jesus the Nazorean is the best explanation for the term Iesous Nazoraios, and later stories about Nazareth were invented to cover up the obviously Essene roots.

Joel

Metacrock

Meta=> NO there is not! I presented the documentation, from the website that most people use to argue that. It shows quite clearly from two different excavations that the town was inhabited in the frsit century. The only reason to think that is the famous myther "argument form silence."


I can't for the life of me undersatnd why silence is so important to them. Why do you think that a silence proves anything? But the evidence is directly and clear!

I've even got pictures from the excavation!


http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html

Metacrock

Nazerath was inhabited in the first century!!! Why do you guys get stuck on this crap??? NO archaeololgist denys this! It's been proven with two modern excavations. I don't know why this seems so imporatnt to sketpics to try and deny that.

Get the drift, learn to love it!

Read the link in the post above. It has a lot more stuff in it. It has several archaeologists and scholars, it has a mention of the twon in historical records, it has answers to the argument about geography and topography, and much more. It has stuff about all the excavations. Here is what it has about the excavation in the 1990s.



SUMMARY OF EXCAVATIONS OF THE NAZARETH VILLAGE

University of the Holy Land

http://www.csec.ac.uk/dig.html


In November 1996 Stephen Pfann of the Center for the Study of Early Chistianity identified an ancient wine press associated with agricultural terraces on the grounds of Nazareth Hospital and the land adjacent to it. Potsherds were found on the surface of the terraces dating from various periods beginning with the early to late Roman period.

An archaeological survey of the surface of the land adjacent to Nazareth Hospital was conducted in February by Ross Voss, R. Michael Rapuano, Stephen Pfann, and Jan Karnis, all from the Center for the Study of Early Christianity. Two distinct areas were identified which are defined by the type of terracing found there.

The first season of Excavation took place April 22nd until May 6th 1997 under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Early Christianity and under the joint directorship of Ross Voss and Stephen Pfann. Subsequent seasons of excavation have been conducted each spring since, with an additional short period of excavation in October 1998.

Location: the southern and eastern slope of the hill below the hospital. The terracing was built upon a rock slope. This was cut previously by surface quarrying which seems, at first, to have been planned to prepare level platforms for the terraces and to provide stone for building structures or terrace walls. The terrace walls were built of oval limestone fragments the size of an American football and smaller. The rough surface of each stone would suggest that these were not carried in from surrounding wadis (rocks from which would have a smooth surface). This suggests that the stones were likely quarried and shaped from the local limestone with impact devices (perhaps hammers and hatchets).

The terraces here are in a poor state of preservation due, in part, to the type of terrace wall that was constructed. However, this does not mean that the terraces were poorly or carelessly constructed, as the following factors indicate: (1) Great effort was exerted to level the stone surface for the building of each terrace. (2) Care was taken to produce a uniform oval shape and size of the stones. This insures a certain uniformity to the contruction of the terrace wall as well as uniform spacing between the stones in order to allow proper aeration and drainage of the soil of the terrace itself.

Terrace walls which are made of stones which fit together in this way tend to need more maintenance than those made of cut and fitted stones (as in a "wet farm"). This would indicate that the type of farm which existed here was an unirrigated "dry farm". This type of farm relies upon watering by rain and dewfall which is supplemented by hand watering from run-off rainwater. The rainwater has been channeled into the small pools (and perhaps cisterns?) which have been identified among the terraces.

The soil of the terraces (only fragments of which have been preserved) seems, at this preliminary stage of our study, to have been layered with soils of at least two consistencies (as has been noted in other terraces found in the farms around Jerusalem - per G. Edelstein). The overall depth of the soil over much of this area is relatively shallow. This would suggest that vines were the primary crop intended for cultivation on such terraces. However certain terraces were deep enough to raise olive trees and many still survive on these terraced slopes today.

Typical crops of the dry farm would have been olives, grapes, figs, almonds, wheat and barley.

Observable structures on the site: wine-press, base of watchtower, pools with channels, agricultural terraces and stone quarry. 1 column drum type crushing stone.


Location: To the southwest contiguous to the first area but divided by a small water-worn valley and continuing across the full length of the slope facing the the first area (interrupted in part by recently constructed homes). It is a homogeneous area built with terraces of sturdy construction. The terrace walls are formed from semi-dressed stones carfully fitted together and strengthened with chink stones. The walls are revetted, leaning slightly backwards into the soil of the terrace.

This type of construction normally supports what would typically be a "wet farm", irrigated directly from springs or pools. This allows the terrace to bear the heavier burden of water laden soil for crops which require irrigation. Typical crops would include legumes and leafy vegetables.

Most of these beautifully preserved terraces are also deep enough to allow the cultivation of larger trees. (cf. the carob trees which exist there which are likely a more recent crop on these slopes).

The ruins of three watchtowers surmount the walls of three separate terraces.

Structures: Three watchtowers, agricultural terraces. Possibly farmhouse, aqueducts, a threshing floor and a tomb (all need to be investigated). 1 column drum type crushing stone.

Area C: Another part of the dry farm.

Above and to the west of Area B lay a series of dry-farm terraces which originally ascended to the crest of the hill. Earlier construction of private homes, the recent construction of a road and the current construction of apartments has either covered or obliterated most of the terraces associated with this area. Three of the remaining terraces were investigated.

We learned from these terraces the long history of the terrace farm at Nazareth Village. Pottery was found from the 1st to the 3rd cent. as well as the 11th to the 12 cent. AD. Local residents remember beans, lentils and carobs being harvested only decades ago.

Areas A, B and C in summary

The valley along with its slopes likely comprises the property of a single family's farm which produced a variety of crops. This includes both areas A, B and C. The center of the farm should be identified with the watchtowers, the terraces and the water dispersement system. Most of the extent of the original farm is therefore almost entirely preserved. This farm remains the most important, and perhaps the only, witness to the life and livelihoods of the ancient Nazarenes. It remains today as the last vestiges of virgin farmland directly connected with the ancient village of Nazareth.

The watchtowers which housed staff, animals and equipment served to protect the nearby crops. It would be from here that the growing crops would be carefully monitored by a family member, a servant, or a hireling. At the time of harvest the various families would shelter here from the heat of midday, and during the evening, the sounds of story-telling, music and singing could no doubt be heard.

On these terraces was the sound of the singing of families in the vineyard at the time of harvest. The sound of the flute echoed as the workers stomped the grapes at the winepress.

It was here that inquisitive children would play and watch life on the terraces. It was here that a certain boy Jesus of the village of Nazareth formed many images. It was these images which he would later bring to mind as spoken in parables concerning God's relationship with man and of the great hope of His Kingdom.

Further archaeological and preservation work will be needed to add to the story and to better understand the rural life of the original Nazareth Village. If preserved this farm will freeze history in time and provide for both resident and visitor a important link for the city of Nazareth and its rich Biblical heritage.

Celsus

Nice straw man you have there Metacrock. Does it scare the birds away? I asked:
I await a proper response.

Joel

Edited to add:
If there's any misunderstanding, when I wrote, "later stories about Nazareth were invented to cover up the obviously Essene roots," I was not disputing the existence of the town, only that the rather convoluted Matthean story of Jesus coming from Nazareth is a fabrication to cover up Nazorean roots.

Jayhawker Soule

No, what we have is you running around chanting "Ding ding ding!" - replete with exclamation point. More helpful would be an explanation of Matthew 2:23.

Vinnie

Bede already addressed this (in a few words). I refer you to this comment: "The non-prophecy is partly what elevates it. It suggests Matt was stuck with the Nazereth connection and wanted to make something of it."

But I'll try to elaborate. it appears to be part of a two-pronged Christian counter to Jewish polemics which suggested that the Messiah "was not to come from Galilee, or a fortiori, from Nazareth." Brown BBM, p. 218. Surely the messiah was not to come from Nazareth is the Jewish polemic evidenced in John 1:45-46 on this. Matthew is stuck with Nazareth as Bede said, "It suggests Matt was stuck with the Nazereth connection and wanted to make something of it.". Its an apologetic used in response to Jewish polemic. As Brown said, "His opponents mocked the fact that Jesus was born from Nazareth in Galilee, an obscure locale that lent little support to either Davidic or divine origin." Brown, ibid.

Mark may have been content with it but I do not see why he or anyone else would choose Nazareth over say Bethlehem if they were wholesale creating. That is why Luke (presumably) goes to great lengths to get Jesus in Bethlehem (the whole census gig!). The Nazareth connection is too strong to be dismissed.

Do not mistake this for an argument that the infancy narratives are historical. It is anything but that.

I do concede that Matthew fits the Nazareth connection in extremely well with his theology. He used Is 4:3 and Jd 16:17(?) and fit it in well with his story. Brown does an excellent job pointing this out in BBM. But this seems like a case of Matthew beeing stuck with Nazareth rather than early Christians creating the connection. I would base this upon the other literary evidence which shows no knowledge of a special birth of Jesus (Mark in Jesus returning to his hometown and John 1:45-46). Further, no Christian (including Luke, Mark and John who all mention Nazareth) ever make any special connection like Matthew. And this Nazareth datum existed long before Mathew's highly "creative" infancy narrative. it is on these grounds that Matthew appear to be launching an apologetic against a two-pronged Jewish polemic. Even if the apologetic motif is secondary it still presupposes the Nazareth connection and if such early opponents mocked Jesus' alleged hometown of Nazareth it greatly bolsters the probable athenticity of this datum.

If Matthew was our first reference to this claim then you could be correct but Gmatthew is not. Nazareth is mentioned as simply a factual detail before this (as is evidence by mark and John's independent usage and the two incidents I brought up which show no knowledge of a special birth of Jewish and presuppose a polemic against the nazareth connection.

This leads me to favor Nazareth as Jesus' hometown.

Vinnie