When you do some internet research on Nazareth, the same quote keeps appearing over and over again. It stems from a press release of the Israel Antiquities Authority:

"The discovery [of the remains of a house] is of utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period"

When you check the sources that are mentioned whenever the topic of this find comes up, they consistently appear to be an MSNBC news article and the press release from the IAA quoted above.

So far, I have not been able to locate a peer-reviewed article of this "discovery" of "utmost importance". Does anyone know if such an article is at least in the making?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2013 05:01PM by rt.

No doubt there were some goat trails up in the hills
above Sepphoris 2000 years ago.

I'll even concede that a few of those goat trails may
have intersected, here and there, forming a logical
spot for shepherds and pedestrian travelers to stop,
sit down for a moment, and Shake Tate dust from their
sandals. Heck, there may have even been a watering
trough and a shed or two at such a trail intersection.

Did any of those spots claim the name of "Nazareth"
2000 years ago? Show me the evidence and I'll respond.
Were there carpenter shops, and synagogues, and Roman
troop barracks up on the same hillside?

Maybe later on -- maybe after the Second Jewish revolt.
Maybe by then, there was some passerby who had an
epistle signed "Paul" in his pack. I'll grant that
much. Eventually there were some residences constructed
up on these hillsides. Some Byzantine priest eventually
held services and collected money to lay the foundation
for a church. The (now) largely Arab village of Nazareth
eventually came into being.

But -- a full-fledged village there, 2000 years ago? Show
me the evidence. And not just a farmhouse or two that
MAY date back 1800 years.

UD

Looks like we're on the same page, Uncle Dale. From what I have been able to find out, there still is zero credible evidence for people living in Nazareth around the time that Jesus is supposed to have grown up there.

The 2009 press release announcing the discovery of a house from the time of Jesus - neatly timed just before the Christmas pilgrimage season - has never been followed up by an official report of the Israel Antiquities Authority (think about it, a government agency NOT producing a report on a discovery of "utmost importance") let alone a scientific publication.

The farmhouse publication you allude to is also highly suspect, akin to a BYU publication in a BYU magazine on the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Of course, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but is that does it for you, you might as well believe in the Book of Mormon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2013 05:22AM by rt.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like we're on the same page, Uncle Dale....

You mean you actually figured out what "Shake Tate dust" means?

I suppose that the first Syrian Christians may have been
called "Nazrani" at a very early period -- perhaps even
reaching back to the ostensible lifetime of Jesus.

There is an Aramaic cognate for Nazrani, that comes out
in translation as something like "little fish." With the
gospels borrowing of Jeremiah 16, for "fishers of men,"
I can well imagine very early Jesus followers being
referred to as "Nazrani" and even using a fish symbol,
decades before the cross came into vogue.

Of course the Aramaic would have been unintelligible to
the Greek Christians -- and Nazareth was probably in
existence by 300 C.E. It being a village close to
the gospels' Capernaum, those same Greek Christians
may have made an erroneous connection and assumed that
Jesus came from Nazareth and that his followers were
the Nazarenes. At any rate, I would not put much stock
in the idea that any gospel passage referring to Nazareth
was composed prior to the 3rd century.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mean you actually figured out what "Shake Tate dust" means?

I figured it was a typo :-)

Sorry I'm coming to this one late. I did a degree in Ancient History and a module in Judea at the time of Christ. I happily admit I copied this reference from Wikipedia but I did read this review and other similar articles for my finals and for my dissertation ( Ken Dark, "book review of The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus", STRATA: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, vol. 26 (2008), pp. 140–146; cf. Stephen J. Pfann & Yehudah Rapuano, "On the Nazareth Village Farm Report: A Reply to Salm", STRATA: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, vol. 26 (2008), pp. 105–112.). Dark and many others would argue that Nazareth may have only had a population of 500 or so but that it was still a lively settlement at the time. Others argue that the whole Nazareth debate is useless because we're looking in the wrong place and that Nazareth in biblical times was on a nearby hill. There is a lot still to be debated and dug up surrounding the Nazareth debate

I'd guess that it dates from around the time of
the Second Jewish Revolt -- lots of dislocates
folks, fleeing Roman soldiers, gathering away
from their homes and taking temporary refuge in
previously uninhabited places, in those days.

It sprang up early enough to get written into the
Christian Bible, but seemingly wasn't much of anything
especially important until the early Byzantine period.

Probably, when Jesus wanted to visit a synagogue, it
would have been the one located at Kfar Nahum. Another
possible early residence may have been Pella, on the
other side of the Jordan -- it had a very early
association with the first Jesus followers.

UD

I understood Jesus was supposed to belong to a sect known as Nazarenes. People took his being a Nazarene as him being from Nazareth, but there was nowhere called Nazareth 2000 years ago.

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638&module_id=#as

This is the link to the Israeli Antiquities Authority, not MSNBC or any other news outlet.

I'll take their word on it too although I agree it was probably very small in Jesus' time

Yes, that is a very poorly written article. "from the Time of Jesus" is never actually defined there.

They report that the findings are from the "Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE)"

That does not mean the Time of Jesus.

armtothetriangle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp
> ?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638&module_id=#as
>
> This is the link to the Israeli Antiquities
> Authority, not MSNBC or any other news outlet.


Which is why I referred to it as a press release by the IAA :-)

On the other thread, you also posted this link and wrote: "The Israeli Antiquities Authority is as scholarly as it comes in archaeology."

That may be so, but this is a press release, not a scholarly work. Moreover, it was nothing but a blatant attempt to lure pilgrims to the tourist trap that is Nazareth over the Christmas holidays.

That is why this press release wasn't followed up by an official IAA report or an article in an archaeology journal.

I'm not sure this is the right question. Why would it matter that Nazareth existed or not?

To me the stronger argument, or better question would be why Nazareth in the first place? The writers of the Gospels were free to choose Jesus' birthplace (Bethlehem), they were also free to choose his home (Nazareth). Bethlehem being a very important city would have made it hard to raise the son of god in because as the NT says, we know this guy and he ain't god. Nazareth is little, out of the way, and this allows for the writers of the NT to fabricate a family and history for the young Jesus. After all how is someone from Jerusalem supposed to know that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth.

The earliest references to Nazareth are probably a misreading by the gospel writers. Jesus is referred to as Jesus the "Nazorean", in earlier references, which probably refer to the Nazorean sect to which he, as well as John the Baptist belonged.

So There probably was no reason for him to be from Nazareth after all.

Thank you for adding this. I am of the opinion that arguing over peripheral issues like this one detract from the real debate. Which in my mind has nothing to do with Jesus' existence but his divinity. In that debate Nazareth is at best a distraction.

I don't understand how the debate over Jesus' divinity trumps the debate over his existence? What's the point of debating the divinity of an imaginary friend?

His existence is shrouded in 2000 years of historical revision. It can be proved or disproved. His divinity is assailable. As for the divinity of imaginary friends, aren't all gods imaginary?

So are you saying that you rather discuss Jesus' divinity than his existence? Just trying to figure out what it is you are saying ;-)

Right, I would rather talk about why he isn't god. Not why he might not have lived.

I would say he isn't god because he (like all other gods) doesn't exist outside the minds of his believers?

Perhaps the use of the name was related to the nasarite vow which possibly included John the Baptist and is also referred to in the Book of Acts as still existing into the early Christian period. The specific idea of Nasareth being a town is hardly essential. If it was really a matter of Christ being one who had taken the vow, it would tell us more of what he ate and did not eat. Apparently the vow was not necessarily a permanent one because, if I recall correctly, the nazarite would not drink wine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2013 01:13PM by rhgc.