Did Jesus come from Nazareth?
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Mon, 08 Feb 1999 10:46:54 -0600 (00918514014, 4.1.19990208104207.00b00100@pop.truman.edu)
At 02:44 AM 2/8/99 -0500, Achilles wrote:
>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.
Ed
I'm certainly skeptical that Jesus was from Nazareth, because it seems
plausible that the "Ha-Nostri" could account for the attribution. It seems
that the gospelers didn't know a Nazarite from a Nazarene.
But even the latest dates of the gospels would have Jesus being assigned to
Nazareth well before the end of the first century. If Nazareth didn't
exist until c. 300 AD, then how did it come to appear in the gospels?