Did Jesus come from Nazareth?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On 7 Feb 99, at 23:07, Ray and Sandy Briggs wrote:


> Our local cable company must have decided that the local fundamentalists

> (they are abundant) would be offended by the A&E special "The Unknown

> Jesus" and censored it off the line up. We got "Great Builders of Egypt"

> or something (which wasn't bad). At any rate, the Unknown Jesus was also

> unknown on local TV.


Achilles
This is exactly why I think it is important to confront fundamentalists. If it 
were only that they had false beliefs, well, they are entitled to believe what 
they want to. But when their beliefs interfere with the rights of those around 
them, even in such a seemingly small way as that, it never stops there does it? 


> I was wondering if there is any truth to the comment below about Nazareth

> in the leader to the program on the A&E site: 

> 

> "The A&E SPECIAL PRESENTATION: THE UNKNOWN JESUS points out there is one

> thing we know for certain -his name was not Jesus Christ. Never during his

> lifetime was he known as Christ. "Christ"is from the ancient Greek,

> Christos. It means "the anointed one, the savior." The name Jesus was

> common. In the sacred writings he is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth."

> And now even that seems to be an error. For Jesus did not grow up in a

> place called Nazareth. He never even lived in Nazareth. Archeologists have

> proven that the town of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after

> Jesus died."

> 

> Maybe someone who lived in a place that was privileged to see this program

> or knows something about this could comment. Have archeologists really

> proved that?

> 

> Regards, Ray


Achilles
Sounds like hyperbole to me. We usually see that from the apologists, but 
skeptics are quite capable of producing it too. 

There is reason to question whether Nazareth existed at that time, but *proven* 
is a rather strong word. I studied archaeology for several years, and as you 
know I am fairly conversant with logic as well, and both these things leads me 
to doubt that claim. 

As I remember, there is at least one decent historical record that a town 
called Nazareth was founded in gallilee well into the Christian era. I vaguely 
remember reading about archaeological confirmation of the late dating of that 
settlement as well, but I could be wrong and remember no details. Perhaps 
another poster will have more specifics. 

At any rate, assuming the strongest evidence I could imagine historical and 
archaeological methods producing, this would not *prove* that there might not 
have been an earlier town by that name, in a different location, which for one 
reason or another was abandoned - doubtless this is what apologists will claim 
if confronted with strong evidence for the above. 

Still, the fact that a negative cannot be proven shouldn't obscure the fact 
that, in looking at any historical question, *proof* is a straw-man standard. 
What is called for in evaluating historical question is not *proof* but 
"preponderance of the evidence" to borrow a legal term. Within that context, 
good evidence for the late date of Nazareth, and the absence of any 
contemporary evidence whatsoever for the existence of that town prior to the 
christian era, is just one more improbable link in a vast chain apologists find 
themselves forced to propose to continue claiming literal, innerrant truth as a 
property of the Bible. 

Regards,

/Achilles     achillesz@usa.net

All rights reserved.

Random thought for the moment:

    Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
           -- Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love

• Previous message: Did Jesus come from Nazareth?
• Next message: Did Jesus come from Nazareth?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]