Did the village of Nazareth exist in the first century?

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

I've read that while Nazareth "existed" it was hardly the birth place or home of Yeshua because it was said to be more of a burial ground and Jews didn't live near the dead. Does anyone have any information to that affect?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

I know, from watching him online, he does not believe Yeshua existed.

[youtube]cOGebAEOU2g[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Carrier Part 1

That's the first video in a series of videos posted but I can't remember at what point he denies the existence of Yeshua.

 

[dogsgod]

Excellent video, refreshing to hear someone making sense of it all.

 

[fallingblood]

I know, from watching him online, he does not believe Yeshua existed.



That's the first video in a series of videos posted but I can't remember at what point he denies the existence of Yeshua.

I know he denies the existence of Yeshua. I thought one of his arguments was that since Nazareth didn't exist during the first century, Yeshua couldn't come from there. However, I just got an email response from him, and he does think that it probably existed.

 

[Levite]

I've read that while Nazareth "existed" it was hardly the birth place or home of Yeshua because it was said to be more of a burial ground and Jews didn't live near the dead. Does anyone have any information to that affect?

I believe there is a series of caves in the hills near Nazareth that was used for burial. But as for the town itself being a burial place, I have never heard such a thing before. It seems unlikely, as the practice among Jews in Israel at that time was to inter their dead in caves, which would be sealed up for a couple of years in order to let the bodies decompose; the bones would then be retrieved and stored in a family ossuary (like a big stone box for keeping bones), which would have been someplace on the family property. Occasionally, if one were simply not near any hills or caves when a person died, they might be interred where they lay (we have always believed in quick burial), but it was a practice of exigent circumstances, not the norm. Non-Jews mostly practiced cremation, according to the Roman custom. There really were no cemetaries as we know them, not until well after Jesus' time.

 

[dogsgod]

On the topic of Nazareth by Richard Carrier, this is what I have found so far:


Richard Carrier said... Philip1978 said... In all my reading so far about the myth of Jesus there is one thing still bothering me that does not make sense. Why do the Gospel writers refer to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" when Nazareth, as far as I know, did not exist in the time Jesus was supposed to have lived....

That is debated and still not the consensus view. Until more scholars are convinced, I'm not going to base any conclusion on the premise Nazareth didn't exist. The earliest reference is a Jewish (not Christian) inscription that dates 2nd-4th century that essentially claims the town took in priestly refugees when the temple fell (which means it existed pre-70). Salm attempts to discredit this, but I'm not convinced. No one else seems to be either.

As to why assign him that town, Matthew claims it was based on a scripture. We don't have all the scriptures today the Christians were using then, so that may be the case. Various scholars (not all of them mythicists) have proposed various other theories (generally involving the term as an epithet that had some other meaning in Aramaic but was transformed into a geographic label). I'll say something about it in my book, which I'm still working hard at finishing. http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/05/appearing-in-san-francisco.html

 

[Oberon]

That is debated and still not the consensus view.

That's a bit dishonest of carrier. It isn't just "not the consensus view." Outside of internet hacks and various amateurs, it isn't a view at all. There isn't really any serious scholarship, even consituting a minority view, which buys into this.

 

[outhouse]

I know, from watching him online, he does not believe Yeshua existed.

[youtube]cOGebAEOU2g[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Carrier Part 1

That's the first video in a series of videos posted but I can't remember at what point he denies the existence of Yeshua.

THANK YOU!

that was a good education

I had the guy wrong, he gives a great speech why zitgiest is junk and now im sold lol

excellent

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

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?

The new testament tells us that Christ was born and lived in Nazareth in Galilee

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Luke2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

Luke 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

However, we can't find any historical confirmation that this city existed in first century.

to be continued.....
​

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

The rational reasons for denying this city existance in that time :

*first : Nazareth was not mentioned in old testament(not even once), even in Joshua: 18 and 19 , when it was counting the city and the villages of Palestine , it didn't mention any thing about Nazareth , specially these verses which described the region in details

Joshua 19:10-16
19:10 And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families: and the border of their inheritance was unto Sarid:​

19:11 And their border went up toward the sea, and Maralah, and reached to Dabbasheth, and reached to the river that is before Jokneam;​

19:12 And turned from Sarid eastward toward the sunrising unto the border of Chislothtabor, and then goeth out to Daberath, and goeth up to Japhia,​

19:13 And from thence passeth on along on the east to Gittahhepher, to Ittahkazin, and goeth out to Remmonmethoar to Neah;​

19:14 And the border compasseth it on the north side to Hannathon: and the outgoings thereof are in the valley of Jiphthahel:​

19:15 And Kattath, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem: twelve cities with their villages.​

19:16 This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun according to their families, these cities with their villages.​

*second : the talmud mentioned 63 village in Galilee but Nazareth was not mentioned.​

*third : Paul did not know any thing about Nazareth , he did not mentioned it, not even once .
However, he mentioned Jesus 221 times, non of them did he call him Jesus the Nazarene.​

*forth : no historian or Geographical did mention the city before the 4th century.​

to be continued .....

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

narrating reasons :

-first: Matthew mentioned that Jesus shall be called a Nazarene, as it was spoken by the prophets in OT.

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

while we can't find in OT , neither in any section we can find this description "He shall be called a Nazarene"!!

I think that Matthew quoted from the following Judges verse :

Judges 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Notice the word "Nazarite" it might be had been interpreted to "Nazarene"

while Nazarite means "warner" or "some one who warn people from somthing".


-second: Luke- who insist that Jesus was a Nazarene- , who promised to have perfect understanding of all things from the very first (
Luke 1:1-3
1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,)

he didn't mention the name of the mountain or the name of the place where Jesus had met devil on.

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

and in fact Nazareth is a city exist in a vally surrounded by low hills (soft hills) , the region is completely surrounded by plain land with no high mounatins or cliffs.

conclusion: Nazareth is a plain land it does not have a high mountain!!


to be continued .....​

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

finally,

I think Nazarene was an interpretaion of a greek origin 'Jesous o Nazoraios'

and it refers to an attribute for Jesus not to a place


Philip mentioned in his Gospel :

The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" [...] has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured

(Gospel of Philip, 47)

so according to him Jesus the Nazarene means Jesus is the "the true Messiah" .


thank you.

 

[David M]

However, we can't find any historical confirmation that this city existed in first century.

to be continued.....
​

City, no. But that there was a 1st century settlement at Nazarath is confirmed by the archaeology which identified a 1st century house there.

There was definitely a settlement in Nazareth in the 1st Century. As to whether it was there at the start of the 1st century that is a trickier question. But finds dating in the range from the 100BCE to 100CE are pretty goof evidence of occupation over a long period of time spanning the start of the 1st century.

You are wrong, confirmation that Nazareth was there in the 1st century does exist.

 

[outhouse]

You are wrong, confirmation that Nazareth was there in the 1st century does exist.

I would not put allot of faith into this.

the one bath house says there might have been a roman garison there but the villages name may not have been nazerene or nazareth at that time. Plus theres allot of weight being put on this building being actually from the 1rst century. As far as i know its only been confirmed by one historian and theres been conflicting views from others in its past.

 

[James Humphreys]

City, no. But that there was a 1st century settlement at Nazarath is confirmed by the archaeology which identified a 1st century house there.

There was definitely a settlement in Nazareth in the 1st Century. As to whether it was there at the start of the 1st century that is a trickier question. But finds dating in the range from the 100BCE to 100CE are pretty goof evidence of occupation over a long period of time spanning the start of the 1st century.

You are wrong, confirmation that Nazareth was there in the 1st century does exist.

Assuming there was a very small settlement there during Jesus' lifetime, I think it is a worthwhile to ask if Jews living in Judea and Jerusalem would have been aware of it. If you said the word "Nazareth" to an average inhabitant of Jerusalem, would they have recognized where it was? To be recognizable it probably would have to be a town of some size. If not, saying "Jesus of Nazareth" might have just drawn blank stares.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

City, no. But that there was a 1st century settlement at Nazarath is confirmed by the archaeology which identified a 1st century house there.

There was definitely a settlement in Nazareth in the 1st Century. As to whether it was there at the start of the 1st century that is a trickier question. But finds dating in the range from the 100BCE to 100CE are pretty goof evidence of occupation over a long period of time spanning the start of the 1st century.

You are wrong, confirmation that Nazareth was there in the 1st century does exist.

well, lets talk with something documented.
Luke and Matthew told us it was a "city"called Nazareth
what do you suggest ? Luke and Matthew weren't aware of that!

 

[James Humphreys]

The problem is that, if I'm not mistaken, in Greek it's "Jesus of Nazareth" and not "Jesus the Nazarene," which is also easily distinguished from "Nazarite," being a completely different word.

Your correct. It could be that Nazareth was strictly a location, and had nothing to do with an affiliation of Jesus. However, I think that a change from "Jesus the Nazarene" (or Nazorean, or Nazorite) to "Jesus of Nazareth" is the kind of small change that it's conceivable to imagine having been done by early scribes copying the gospels.

If I am not mistaken Nazareth and Nazarite have the same root meaning, dealing with purification.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Assuming there was a very small settlement there during Jesus' lifetime, I think it is a worthwhile to ask if Jews living in Judea and Jerusalem would have been aware of it. If you said the word "Nazareth" to an average inhabitant of Jerusalem, would they have recognized where it was? To be recognizable it probably would have to be a town of some size. If not, saying "Jesus of Nazareth" might have just drawn blank stares.

you are absolutely right!

 

[James Humphreys]

In the Gospels though, Jesus is said specifically to come from Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth then, after we have been told directly that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth, means that he was from Nazareth. In the context of the gospels, it is clear that Jesus of Nazareth referred to where he was brought up, and not something else.

Yes. In considering this one thing that has come to my mind is the possibility that Jesus grew up among a community of people, possibly part of the larger Essene movement, that had settled in Galilee. They could have been self-identified or been known by others as Nazarenes or Nazoreans.

 

[James Humphreys]

Yes. Also, it seems extremely unlikely that Jesus was a Nazir, since the vow of the Nazir restricted one from (among other things) drinking wine, or consuming any products of the grapevine; and I think we can all recall at least a couple of well-known instances in the gospel stories where Jesus drank wine.

It is worth noting that in Hebrew, Jesus has never been referred to as a Nazir (spelled nun-zayin-yod-resh) but always as ha-Notzri (heh-nun-tzadi-resh-yod), meaning "from Natzrat," Natzret or Natzrat being the correct pronuniciations of the town name Latinized to Nazareth.

Okay, but it could be argued that John and his disciples were Nazirs. In Matthew 11:18-19 it indicates that "John came neither eating nor drinking", contrary to Jesus. Also, Matthew 9:14 says "Then the disciples of John came to him saying 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?'" This shows that not only did John's disciples practice a more ascetic lifestyle than the disciples of Jesus, but it was probably some source of friction or contention between the two groups.

So the New Testament does portray Jesus and his disciples drinking wine during his public ministry, although it is clear that Jesus himself at times did fast. But the question arises as to Jesus' life prior to his public ministry. Is it not possible that earlier on, as the Mandaean writings indicate, John and Jesus shared a more similar way of life? In that case Jesus going a different way later could have caused some of John' disciples to be critical of Jesus' movement and teachings.