Did the village of Nazareth exist in the first century?

[fallingblood]

Having watched Richard Carrier's video series, Jesus has Left the Building, there is the suggestion that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. Because of that, I have been under the impression that that was the position that he held, that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.

Having tried to find an article or the like that Carrier has stated his belief about Nazareth though failed to support the idea that he denied the existence of Nazareth. Instead, it seems as if he admits that most likely it did in fact exist.

My question is then, what does Carrier actually support, and are there any credible arguments that support the idea that Nazareth did not exist in the first century?

 

[dogsgod]

No one can comment on the non existence of such a thing as an ancient town. It's reasonable to remain skeptical of a so called ancient town such as Nazareth existing in the first century considering the source, and that it was previously unheard of.

 

[Levite]

Having watched Richard Carrier's video series, Jesus has Left the Building, there is the suggestion that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. Because of that, I have been under the impression that that was the position that he held, that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.

Having tried to find an article or the like that Carrier has stated his belief about Nazareth though failed to support the idea that he denied the existence of Nazareth. Instead, it seems as if he admits that most likely it did in fact exist.

My question is then, what does Carrier actually support, and are there any credible arguments that support the idea that Nazareth did not exist in the first century?

If you visit Nazereth, you can see there the ruins of Roman buildings from the First Century, and a synagogue that may be either First or Second Century.

It existed. Why anyone would claim otherwise is beyond me.

 

[outhouse]

Nazara goes back to 200 and one theory suggest population of 480 during that period.

so little is know and the jewish books go blank about it from 200 back


ill research Richard Carrier

 

[outhouse]

what does Carrier actually support

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

since 2005 he has considered it "very likely" the historical Jesus didn't exist,[18] but that this still "remains only a hypothesis" in need of peer review

from reading up on him I would not seek the answers you look for from him.


credible arguments will be tough either way.

if 200 is as far back as it goes and population was 480 a hundred years earlier there may have only been a camp

researching, again lol

 

[outhouse]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Never heard of the place' – Josephus[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha. [/FONT]



heres a interesting take from http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html I dont trust the site for there bias but this article makes some good points

 

[dogsgod]

If you visit Nazereth, you can see there the ruins of Roman buildings from the First Century, and a synagogue that may be either First or Second Century.

It existed. Why anyone would claim otherwise is beyond me.

A town may have existed there, the question is whether or not it was known as Nazareth during the first century. Hundreds of years after the gospels were written it became necessary to establish a place called Nazareth so that Christian pilgrims could come and do whatever it is that Christians do on their pilgrimage to so called Holy sites.

 

[Oberon]

No one can comment on the non existence of such a thing as an ancient town. It's reasonable to remain skeptical of a so called ancient town such as Nazareth existing in the first century considering the source, and that it was previously unheard of.

Right. The earliest christians were dying to make up a place no one had heard of for their savior to come from (and place it in a real area lots of people knew), then try to get around the fact that he was from nazareth by claiming he was born in bethlehem. It all fits your thesis that mark was actually a 20th century writer interested in writing historical fiction hundreds and hundreds of years before the genre was invented.

 

[outhouse]

I think at best it was a very very small settlement to maybe a camp without a name.

The fact it was a burial place does not mean there were no peole there because of jewish law. But i wonder how much credibility lies with the bible to describe it as a larger city

 

[fallingblood]

The main reason I was asking this is because I've been in the process of writing a paper for a class on the subject of the historical Jesus; primarily on whether or not Jesus existed. I was going to quote Carrier on saying that Nazareth didn't exist, but I can't find any evidence now that he believes that.

I am of the same opinion as Levite, and Oberon, that Nazareth did exist. But I was just interested in the opposition.

 

[outhouse]

I was going to quote Carrier

again I dont think he's done enough study to use at your level.

I think it may have existed but as a small camp at best and thus never worth mentioning.

Im under the impression people lived there but how many is not certain, and when it was named may not have been at that time.

 

[dogsgod]

If one could find a source that supports The Bible claim for a 1st century Nazareth, that in itself would be useful because bible based beliefs are otherwise a dime a dozen.

 

[Oberon]

because bible based beliefs are otherwise a dime a dozen.

Kind of like your internet based jesus is a myth belief.

 

[ellenjanuary]

...own...personal...Jesus...

Yeah. I heard this argument before; basically there is no argument, there was a Nazareth. As for Josephus; man's got an agenda, what can I say?

 

[ellenjanuary]

heres a interesting take from Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built I dont trust the site for there bias but this article makes some good points

That looks like one of those UFO sites.

Bias is an understatement. The webmaster should try less sensationalism, if he had a point.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Having watched Richard Carrier's video series, Jesus has Left the Building, there is the suggestion that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. Because of that, I have been under the impression that that was the position that he held, that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.

Having tried to find an article or the like that Carrier has stated his belief about Nazareth though failed to support the idea that he denied the existence of Nazareth. Instead, it seems as if he admits that most likely it did in fact exist.

My question is then, what does Carrier actually support, and are there any credible arguments that support the idea that Nazareth did not exist in the first century?

I wonder if this video was made after a first century Roman bath was discovered in Nazareth.

 

[outhouse]

I wonder if this video was made after a first century Roman bath was discovered in Nazareth.

isnt that bath still up for debate about the exact time?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

isnt that bath still up for debate about the exact time?

I dunno. I don't think that there's much debate about the date among archaeologists. There may be disagreements between people who don't know anything about it.

Unfortunately I don't think that there is an archaeological report, and I don't expect one in my lifetime. The owner of the bath is using it as an attraction to get people into his gift shop. Personally I think that he's holding out on a huge check from a university.

 

[outhouse]

Ancient Bath House of Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

with this stated, ive found better dates through carbon dating.

I think what it will take is for them to dig it up and find out how old the sub structure is below it.

intesting but it will take work to get to the real age.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ancient Bath House of Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

with this stated, ive found better dates through carbon dating.

I think what it will take is for them to dig it up and find out how old the sub structure is below it.

intesting but it will take work to get to the real age.

Like I said, they can tell that it fits first century (or earlier) Roman bath style, which is not all that difficult to determine because we can compare it to those in Pompeii and Herculaneum, which are frozen in time. Until more proof is presented to the contrary, and we have no reason to expect that it will be, it's perfectly reasonable to approach it as a first century bath.

And the certainty of this conclusion is demonstrated by the disinterest in spending an inordinate amount of trouble and money to fully excavate the site. It's interesting, sure, but we've seen a Roman bath before. No need to dig up another one.