Did the village of Nazareth exist in the first century?

[outhouse]

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.

would the priest not be there to tend to a graveyard? I dont know what role if any priest played in burial's like they do now.

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.

any chance carrier is talking about this?

 

[Kathryn]

As I noted before, the mental gyrations required to try to avoid the probability of a first century settlement/village/town called Nazareth are amazing, in a sort of pitiful way.

 

[sandandfoam]

As I noted before, the mental gyrations required to try to avoid the probability of a first century settlement/village/town called Nazareth are amazing, in a sort of pitiful way.

There's also the question of whether it matters.
Me, I don't think so. (I happen to believe in the historicity of Jesus - I just don't think it's important.)

 

[dogsgod]

The best evidence for an early Nazareth is the Caesarea inscription, the worst evidence for a Nazareth are the recent archeological digs made near Mary's Well in present day Nazareth. Considering how holy places were "discovered" in the Byzantine era, the location of a first century Nazareth is not obvious except to people of faith.

 

[outhouse]

As I noted before, the mental gyrations required to try to avoid the probability of a first century settlement/village/town called Nazareth are amazing, in a sort of pitiful way.

As I noted before, knowing the truth is more important then wanting it to be, I find it pitiful that it lives in faith alone.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's a short summary of the archaeological discoveries in first century Nazareth:

"Aside from Sepphoris and Tiberias, perhaps the two best-known Galilean sites from this time period are Nazareth and Capernaum, famous for their association with the ministry of Jesus. Numerous tombs have been found in Nazareth, demarcating the boundaries of the ancient villiage. Excavations underneath the Church of the Annunciation and the Church of St. Joseph have revealed chambers, tunnels, cavities, pits, cisterns, oil presses, and granaries, all indicators of the villiage's agricultural activity (Bagatti 1969).

​

Mark Alan Chancey and Adam Lowry Porter, "The Archaeology of Roman Palestine" Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 164-203

 

[outhouse]

Ok givin that when do you think it was large enough to get a a name?

Numerous tombs have been found in Nazareth

was it not jewish law to not live around tombs

 

[outhouse]

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this tells a better story of archaeological discoveries

Im under the impression that after the original settlement 9000 years ago died out around 586bc

With confliction biblical reports of the location on a hillside not in the valley. I believe it was not named until sometime after the revolt in 67.

I dont think theres a shred of proof or written knowledge that anything other then a graveyard was present at this time. At best one guess was 480 people lived there but nothing when christ was living.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok givin that when do you think it was large enough to get a a name?

was it not jewish law to not live around tombs

They were outside of town.

I don't know when it was given a name. I can find out a timeframe though, given the development of language.

 

[outhouse]

They were outside of town.

I don't know when it was given a name. I can find out a timeframe though, given the development of language.

That would be cool if you could do that and tell one way or another before or after the 67 revolt.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, Nazareth appears in Greek in the NT, which is a phonetic spelling of Hebrew (basically, the way it's spelled in Hebrew and Greek make it sound the same).

I suspect that if the town had only a Greek or Latin name, it would be a later city. Because the name is Hebrew, I would say that the town at least preceeds Alexander the Great and of course the Roman conquest. I'm sure that like many other places in the Levant, the area had been inhabited for a good long while, but I haven't seen the original excavation reports.

 

[outhouse]

what about mathew stateing it was on a hillside? which begs to ask if thats the book where the phonics came from.

that would go along with the fact the valley was a graveyard.

not stretching here just going down all avenues to cover what is and isnt possible.

The shard/s i believe were noted to be possible stratification erorrs in the report from the house.

thats cool the phonics put it closer.

 

[fallingblood]

what about mathew stateing it was on a hillside? which begs to ask if thats the book where the phonics came from.

that would go along with the fact the valley was a graveyard.

not stretching here just going down all avenues to cover what is and isnt possible.

The shard/s i believe were noted to be possible stratification erorrs in the report from the house.

thats cool the phonics put it closer.

And you can't forget the inscription talking about it being a safe haven for priests after the revolt, which places it at least around 70 C.E.

As for Matthew, I would say that he just has his facts wrong. Which isn't surprising since Nazareth wasn't very well known. Matthew most likely had an idea of the country side, and the general vicinity, and put two and two together.

 

[outhouse]

being a safe haven for priests after the revolt

for my education since i know so little about this subject

why would this place be a safe haven? Its not that isolated, would this leed back to hiding out in a graveyard?

 

[Ben Masada]

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?

IMHO, the village of Nazareth did exist in the First Century because when Geneal Pompey invaded the Middle East and conquered Syria, he would use that passage from Syria to Antioch and vice-versa for supplies, and Nazareth is mentioned as a safe strategic place for the Infantry to camp. (From the book "The Strongest man in Home."
Ben

 

[outhouse]

IMHO, the village of Nazareth did exist in the First Century because when Geneal Pompey invaded the Middle East and conquered Syria, he would use that passage from Syria to Antioch and vice-versa for supplies, and Nazareth is mentioned as a safe strategic place for the Infantry to camp. (From the book "The Strongest man in Home."
Ben

sources please.

as it stands now theres no known written documents before 200 or mention of this name anywhere. And surely not from 64bc.

 

[David M]

The shard/s i believe were noted to be possible stratification erorrs in the report from the house.

No they weren't. The reports referred to (the release made by the IAA) makes no mention of stratification erorrs.

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.

Because archaeology hasn't moved on in the last 1 1/2 millenia has it?

From what mentions there are of Nazareth the current town in is approximately the right place.

 

[outhouse]

. The reports referred to (the release made by the IAA) makes no mention of stratification erorrs.

sources please.

because i believe the report makes no findings of first cerntury

 

[Ben Masada]

sources please.

as it stands now theres no known written documents before 200 or mention of this name anywhere. And surely not from 64bc.

I gave you what I could remember. It has been a few years since I read the book, "The Strongest Man in Rome." I don't remember the name of the author, something like ....Hinnerman. I think Erick or Derick Hinnerman. A German Scholar. I am not sure about anything else. He did mention the strategic site on the mountainside of the village of Nazareth. It was at the time of Pompey about 60 or 65 BCE.
Ben

 

[David M]

sources please.

because i believe the report makes no findings of first cerntury

Source?

Do you mean a link to the IAA report I already provided (#63) in a post that you responded to (#64) or the IMFA report that was linked in material that you posted (#68).

I can see that you don't bother reading information other people provide or that you provide yourself.

I've already corrected you on this in Post #69 (where the link to the report is again present in your text that I quoted - "[Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs] press release, ").

Apart from the whole "time of Jesus" part heres one specific use of 1st Century.
"fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE)"

And no there is no mention of stratigraphic inclusion in those reports.

You need to do a little more of your own work if you want any further response from me.