Did Jesus come from Nazareth?
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Mon, 8 Feb 1999 17:26:23 -0500 (00918534383, 22250231264313@unifour.com)
On 8 Feb 99, at 10:46, Ed Tyler wrote:
> >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?
Achilles
I agree with you completely regarding Ha-Nostri.
I am not, however, aware of any firm evidence placing the Gospels in the first
century. Yes, I am aware that most biblical scholars do so date them, but on
the basis of rather shaky inferences it seems to me. Certainly there is no
manuscript evidence for such early dates, and they only start to be quoted by
other writers a bit later as well.
Re: Nazareth
(start secondary source)
The New Bible Dictionary (p.819) says that “the earliest Jewish reference to it
is in a Hebrew inscription excavated at Caesarea in 1962, which mentions it as
one of the places in Galilee to which members of the twenty-four priestly
courses emigrated after the foundation of Aelia Capitolina [the Roman colony
Hadrian set up over a ruined Jerusalem] in AD 135.”
(end secondary source)
I can't find any earlier references to Nazareth, excepting the gospels, IF they
really are earlier. If Nazareth existed at the time the evangelists wrote, they
would not necessarily have known how long it had existed. They were just
looking for an explanation of Ha-Nostri. Notice how one says they lived in
Bethlehem (another "fact" that results from misunderstanding the OT) and moved
to Nazareth, while another says they lived in Nazareth and had to go to
Bethlehem for a census?
Still trying to dig up the sources I remember seeing, will post again if I find
them.
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
A preposition must never be used to end a sentence with.
-- S. Gorn's Compendium of Rarely Used Cliches