Did the village of Nazareth exist in the first century?

[David M]

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.

The more recent excavations of a 1st century Jewish house provides a lot more compelling evidence.

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.

Maybe they would recognise it and maybe they wouldn't. But they could have been told if they had asked about it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The more recent excavations of a 1st century Jewish house provides a lot more compelling evidence.

... a first century Jewish house in Nazareth?

Do you have a source?

 

[David M]

... a first century Jewish house in Nazareth?

Do you have a source?

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638&module_id=#as

The IAA site is not that easy to navigate around though and I can't find a link to any published paper there.

 

[outhouse]

Israel Antiquities Authority - Articles

The IAA site is not that easy to navigate around though and I can't find a link to any published paper there.

hers a little info on that dig

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built



In 2009 it was a "Jesus-era house", located conveniently close to the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Church of the Annunciation[/FONT].
The finds that captured the international headlines in December, were uncovered months earlier and more prosaically reported as "two rock-cuttings in the bedrock and the remains of a large building dated to the Mamluk period."
By the holiday, they had become "the first house from the time of Jesus", and a hidden pit, interpreted as "Jewish preparations for the impending war with Rome".
Hey, something for Christians and Jews!
The fact that the archaeologist, Yardenna Alexandre – involved at "Mary's Well" in 1998 – was sponsored by the Nazareth Municipality and the Israeli Tourist Board, clearly had no influence on her gushing "breaking news". Nor was it pertinent that the site was within a new international Christian centre being funded by French Roman Catholics.
What, stoop to the level of cheap sensationalism to keep the circus on the road?

 

[David M]

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!

And Nazareth may have been called a town or city rather than a village by the time of the versions of Luke and Matthew in the bible as these were not written until about a half century after the events they describe.

No one knows how big 1st century Nazareth was and its going to be difficult to find out as most of the area is underneath the current town.

 

[outhouse]

we know it was a burial place and graves were found there with oil lamps dated to the right period.

Luke and mathew are not historical documents

theres plenty of proof there was no large city there at that time. Theres even a map from the third century that does not show nazareth.

Nazareth didnt start appearing in any text until the second century. in a highly populated area if there was even a village it would have been noted.

fallingblood isnt asking about this because its a sealed deal, hes looking for proof to fight [well not fighht but you get my point] agaisnt a historian. The bible doesnt cut it..

All i told you is not to put allot of weight into what has been found so far, we know romans occupied the area for a few hundred years. To stretch that even into a small village is a bit much. Im sure there were people that lived that were there. this does not make it nazareth or if it was even named at that time. I personaly dought it had the name nazareth at that time. As he NT was being put together it became a town and the scribes must have believed thats where the area was that the jesus charactor came from.

 

[David M]

hers a little info on that dig

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

In 2009 it was a "Jesus-era house", located conveniently close to the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Church of the Annunciation[/FONT].
The finds that captured the international headlines in December, were uncovered months earlier and more prosaically reported as "two rock-cuttings in the bedrock and the remains of a large building dated to the Mamluk period."
By the holiday, they had become "the first house from the time of Jesus", and a hidden pit, interpreted as "Jewish preparations for the impending war with Rome".
Hey, something for Christians and Jews!
The fact that the archaeologist, Yardenna Alexandre – involved at "Mary's Well" in 1998 – was sponsored by the Nazareth Municipality and the Israeli Tourist Board, clearly had no influence on her gushing "breaking news". Nor was it pertinent that the site was within a new international Christian centre being funded by French Roman Catholics.
What, stoop to the level of cheap sensationalism to keep the circus on the road?

That piece is factually incorrect, it was not a building of the Mamluk period, it was a wall from the mamluk period built on top of one of the walls of an older building.

No its not pertinent that the site is within a new international Christian centre being funded by French Roman Catholics other than the fact that the clearing of the site for the new centre provided the opportunity to excavate the area.

A lot of excavations inside the bounds of modern towns and cities only happen when sites are cleared so that new buildings can be erected, because people tend to object if you ask to demolish their house just so you can look underneath it. This is not unusual as your source tries to imply.

Did your source look up what Yardenna Alexandre's conclusions were after the excavations at Mary's Well before implying she was being unprofessional. They were that the site was certainly in use in the Byzantine period but that evidence for Roman-era use is lacking, hardly the conclusions of a someone trying to twist the evidence to match christian/jewish needs.

That article is one long attack on the announcement and contains no discussion about the actual evidence other than implying that a professional acheologist is dishonest.

Here's some news for you, journalists regularly hype discoveries far beyond what the scientists actually say.

 

[outhouse]

Here's some news for you, journalists regularly hype discoveries far beyond what the scientists actually say.

this is what im pointing out to you

David I dont think you have done enough research on the subject to understand what was found. Again all i asked is you not put allot of weight into it.

The truth about Nazareth


[Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs] press release, which states that the ceramics found at the site were perhaps second century CE, I contacted a friend of mine who is a director at the Albright. He confirmed for me that the typology is first-second century CE, and presently the ceramic finds are so sparse and disjointed that it is still too early to rule out stratigraphic intrusion. So, judging from the finds themselves, the “Jesus era” is apparently first-second century CE or perhaps even later. Obviously, this dig adds little if anything to our previous body of knowledge at this time, as we already have scarce first-second century ceramic remains at Nazareth and an evidentiary profile that confirms occupation of the site in the second century CE.

On December 21, 2009, news regarding an excavation in Nazareth was released simultaneously to multiple press agencies around the globe. Many articles immediately touted discovery of house remains “from the time of Jesus,” a view allegedly expressed by the archaeologist herself. However, the brief official statement from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) does not support this thesis. The IAA release is the primary report and supersedes secondary sources such as articles in the press and interpretive remarks. This will continue until a scholarly report with independently verifiable itemizations, diagrams, and discussion appears in print.
The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus&#8221. Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE. The only other dating divulged in the report is of structural remains from the Mamluk period. The alleged presence of a “small camouflaged grotto” could point to a hiding place at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE), consistent with other material from Nazareth, not to the time of the First Revolt (c. 70 CE).

 

[David M]

this is what im pointing out to you

Was I using the reports from news outlets. No, I was using the press release from the IAA which does not make any outrgageous claims.

David I dont think you have done enough research on the subject to understand what was found. Again all i asked is you not put allot of weight into it.

Bollocks, you are the one linking to websites containing unreliable sources that contain factual errors.

The truth about Nazareth

[Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs] press release, which states that the ceramics found at the site were perhaps second century CE, I contacted a friend of mine who is a director at the Albright. He confirmed for me that the typology is first-second century CE, and presently the ceramic finds are so sparse and disjointed that it is still too early to rule out stratigraphic intrusion. So, judging from the finds themselves, the “Jesus era” is apparently first-second century CE or perhaps even later. Obviously, this dig adds little if anything to our previous body of knowledge at this time, as we already have scarce first-second century ceramic remains at Nazareth and an evidentiary profile that confirms occupation of the site in the second century CE.

On December 21, 2009, news regarding an excavation in Nazareth was released simultaneously to multiple press agencies around the globe. Many articles immediately touted discovery of house remains “from the time of Jesus,” a view allegedly expressed by the archaeologist herself. However, the brief official statement from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) does not support this thesis. The IAA release is the primary report and supersedes secondary sources such as articles in the press and interpretive remarks. This will continue until a scholarly report with independently verifiable itemizations, diagrams, and discussion appears in print.
The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus&#8221. Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE. The only other dating divulged in the report is of structural remains from the Mamluk period. The alleged presence of a “small camouflaged grotto” could point to a hiding place at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE), consistent with other material from Nazareth, not to the time of the First Revolt (c. 70 CE).

The underlined text on red is a factual error. The press release mentions pottery dated to the 1st AND 2nd Century. Theres another when it says the press release refers to the “the Roman period,” when it only ever refers to "the Early Roman Period". Quote Mining is dishonest. So your source is being dishonest about what the IAA report says.

Note this "He confirmed for me that the typology is first-second century CE, and presently the ceramic finds are so sparse and disjointed that it is still too early to rule out stratigraphic intrusion"

Confirmation that the site can be 1st century or earlier. Stratigraphic intrusion would make the building older than the pottery.

You can claim that there is bias in the IAA, but try to do so with links to sites that display obvious bias and errors.

 

[outhouse]

it amazes me you dont see motive plus the fact what was found could easily date to 150

thast what first, second century means, add to the fact stratigraphic intrusion and you have nothing we already dont know.

Im takling this open and dont care one way or the other, it seems you have a personal agenda to make this what it isnt.

 

[David M]

it amazes me you dont see motive plus the fact what was found could easily date to 150

I can see motive, and its perfectly clear in the links you posted.

And it can just as easily date to 1AD.

thast what first, second century means, add to the fact stratigraphic intrusion and you have nothing we already dont know.

No, it means from 1AD to 199AD.

Im takling this open and dont care one way or the other, it seems you have a personal agenda to make this what it isnt.

I have a personal agenda to highlight dishonesty, thats about all. Your use of dishonest sources is what suggests an agenda. Find me an accurate and reputable source on the other side of the argument.

The question in this thread is whether Nazareth existed in the 1st Century. The finds announced by the IAA suggest that it did, and I'm not going to imply that professional archeologists are lying until papers are published.

 

[dogsgod]

And Nazareth may have been called a town or city rather than a village by the time of the versions of Luke and Matthew in the bible as these were not written until about a half century after the events they describe.

No one knows how big 1st century Nazareth was and its going to be difficult to find out as most of the area is underneath the current town.

How do you know it's underneath the current town? When did the current town become known as Nazareth?

 

[outhouse]

How do you know it's underneath the current town? When did the current town become known as Nazareth?

+1

and The fact it cannot be found anywhere in any lititure or maps before 200 tells you its nothing more then a small village at best. A map in the area at around 300 shows no such place exist.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, obviously it EXISTED then, since there is archeological evidence linking it to the 1st/2nd century AD. Most "cities" in Judea were not much more than villages, and most villages were more like settlements during that time.

There's a place right down the road from me called Possum Kingdom, and it's not on many maps. But it's there - and people live there. I doubt very seriously that it will make it onto many, if any, Rand McNally maps, though.

Providing links from sites called "jesusneverexisted.com" frankly don't add much credibility to any argument. Just sayin'.

 

[outhouse]

Well, obviously it EXISTED then

if it was obvious fallingblood would nothave had to start a post looking to find carriers sources

and most villages were more like settlements during that time

not all were villages, and they were not villages built up on a graveyard according to jewish law at the time

 

[dogsgod]

Invisible gods are obvious to some.

 

[fallingblood]

if it was obvious fallingblood would nothave had to start a post looking to find carriers sources

I was just actually looking for Carriers opinion. I don't take much heed of it for the most part, but I was going to offer a rebuttal to it. However, Carrier does give what is some definitive evidence: "we still have one definitive proof: the 2nd/3rd century inscription recording Galilean towns that took in priests after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed--which names Nazareth as one such town, which puts a town of that name, in Galilee, in 70 A.D. "(taken from an email conversation).

I think that is pretty good proof.

not all were villages, and they were not villages built up on a graveyard according to jewish law at the time

I wouldn't put much weight on it being built on a graveyard. If priests were willing to relocate there, I doubt it would have been against Jewish law.

 

[dogsgod]

Does Carrier provide a source?

According to wiki:

In 1960, a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea, dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century, mentions Nazareth as one of the places in which the priestly (kohanim) family of Hapizzez was residing after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135 AD).[56] From the three fragments that have been found, it is possible to show that the inscription was a complete list of the twenty-four priestly courses (cf. 1 Chronicles 24:7-19; Nehemiah 11;12), with each course (or family) assigned its proper order and the name of each town or village in Galilee where it settled. An interesting aspect of this inscription is that the name for Nazareth is not spelled with the "z" sound (as one would expect from the Greek gospels) but with the Hebrew tsade (thus "Nasareth" or "Natsareth"). M. Avi-Yonah. "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea." Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962):138.

 

[David M]

How do you know it's underneath the current town? When did the current town become known as Nazareth?

Because when they do manage to dig under the current town they find 1st and 2nd century archeaology.

 

[dogsgod]

Because when they do manage to dig under the current town they find 1st and 2nd century archeaology.

How do we know the location of the current town is the same as that of the supposed 1st century town? A lot of Christian locations were "discovered" in the third and fourth centuries along with the "discovery" of the cross, the birthplace of Jesus, and so on.