Did the village of Nazareth exist in the first century?

[outhouse]

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.

first i wasnt asking you for anything, i know your stance.

i was aking for this source ===== "The Strongest Man in Rome." I don't remember the name of the author, something like ....Hinnerman. I think Erick or Derick Hinnerman

his name is eric but i cant find any sources for what he has to say.

 

[outhouse]

Source?

Do you mean a link to the IAA report I already provided

After reading the MFA [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.

the iaa is not credibal

its an obvious tourist attraction along with this house.

IT adds nothing to what we already know.

 

[Troublemane]

Very interesting stuff. I think it is very possible that Nazareth did not in fact exist until after Jesus was executed. I recall hearing a theory that the title 'Nazorean" was some kind of title, or that he (Jesus) was actually a member of an anti-roman religious sect called the 'Nazarenes' who grew their hair long as a form of protest. The idea was that afterward, by the time the Gospels were written down, the centuries of oral history had blended the name Nazorean and the place Nazareth which had come later.

I think its highly plausible that Nazareth the place did not exist at the time of Jesus, but I do not see how that proves the man himself did not live and breathe.

 

[outhouse]

but I do not see how that proves the man himself did not live and breathe.

it doesnt have anything to do with that.

the only reason theres a debate about it is because the bibles said it was there just like it states many things not true in my opinion.

most of the bible was written at a time when the village was emerging and thus, if jesus did live in the area they would have used that new village's name

 

[David M]

first i wasnt asking you for anything, i know your stance.

Really? Then why were you quoting my correction that the report did not contain any mention of stratigraphic inclusion when you asked for a source.

After reading the MFA [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.

the iaa is not credibal

its an obvious tourist attraction along with this house.

IT adds nothing to what we already know.

Yes, keep telling us that the IAA is not credible and paste from articles that lie about what the reports says (see my previous posts).

 

[Oberon]

the iaa is not credibal

But jesusneverexisted.com is? Come to think of it, virtually every source I've seen you cite is from some sensationalist website, not scholarship.

 

[outhouse]

sensationalist website

doesnt matter in this case.

nazareth is still not known before 200 with written knowlegde. maps from 300 era do still do not show nazareth but every other little village.

there still isnt one shred of proof of a town there while christ was alive. [non biblical]

all evidence points to nothing nazareth BC.

If you have something BC please show it.

not scholarship.

are you not overstepping your bounds here. that would be historian territory since nothing is written before 200 ish

 

[outhouse]

heres carriers view on all this

Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier on the Existence of Nazareth and the Movie Zeitgeist

Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

 

[Oberon]

there still isnt one shred of proof of a town there while christ was alive. [non biblical]

Funny that archaeologists don't share your concerns:

Aside from Sepphoris and Tiberias, perhaps the two bestknown Galilean sites from this time period are Nazareth and Capernaum, famous for their association with the ministry of Jesus. Numerous tombs have been found at Nazareth, demarcating the boundaries of the ancient village. 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 village’s agricultural activity (Bagatti 1969).

Chancey, Mark Alan, and Adam Lowry Porter. “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine.” Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 64, No. 4, December 2001.
Atlanta, GA, USA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001. p 22.

all evidence points to nothing nazareth BC.

Wrong, for a number of reasons. First, absence of evidence isn't evidence. This particular argumentum ex silentio is particularly poor because, in addition to some archaeological evidence, we have the gospels. Let's look at that a bit closer:

Ignoring whether Jesus himself is a myth for a second, it is well known and undeniable that the gospels present real people and real places at least some of the time. Gallilee is not a fiction created by Mark, nor is John the Baptist a literary device in Luke, nor are Herod or Pilate inventions of Matthew. The question then becomes as Mark, writing in c. 70 CE, and having been around for probably some time prior to that (we have no clue what his age was but in all probability he wasn't writing as a teenager), talks about nazareth, and states that Jesus came from it. Why on earth would he make this up? His purpose, that Jesus was the messiah the jews were waiting for, is harmed, not help by this fact. Why try to depict this Jesus fellow as some cultic Christ figure, and then do so by making him come from the backwoods of no where? It doesn't make sense to think of nazareth as the one made up place in the gospels.

are you not overstepping your bounds here. that would be historian territory since nothing is written before 200 ish

Historians write scholarship. Scholarship is anything written by experts and intended to be taken seriously by other experts. There are 200+ years or critical jesus scholarship. There's an enormous amount of stuff out there, written by historians, classicists, scholars of christianity, scholars of judaism, etc, from all different religious and cultural backgrounds. And yet, not only do you ignore all of this in favor of sensationalist websites, you then pretend objectivity and dismiss the credibility of others' sources.

 

[outhouse]

And yet, not only do you ignore all of this in favor of sensationalist websites, you then pretend objectivity and dismiss the credibility of others' sources.

first read this i posted

I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

and second earlier in this thread I simply stated dont put weight into the evidence at hand.


next

(Bagatti 1969).

of which nothing shows nazareth BC

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you dont like it and can back it, why dont you change it.???

 

[outhouse]

It doesn't make sense to think of nazareth as the one made up place in the gospels.

as i sated i know the town IS there.

all that is being argued is the date of when it was givin its name, there is no evidence BC this does not mean it was not there and named BC it could have been. I'm saying dont put weight into the current evidence.

I personaly dont think it was named BC, since the gospels were written later that is possible.

 

[David M]

heres carriers view on all this

Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier on the Existence of Nazareth and the Movie Zeitgeist

Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff).

And Carrier is right, the use of Josephus is a non-sequitur by those who subscribe to the ahistoricity of Nazareth.

The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

Yes, Carrier supports the proposition that Nazareth existed in the early 1st Century.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, Carrier supports the proposition that Nazareth existed in the early 1st Century.

yes with a touch of gray area

I leave it to the experts to debate the matter

and i understand this clearly

we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

what it comes down for is we dont know exactly when nazareth was founded.

 

[Oberon]

first read this i posted

The experts have come to the virtually unanimous conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure and that Nazareth existed during Jesus' day.

I simply stated dont put weight into the evidence at hand.

No, what you do is troll around sensationalist internet sites and then have the nerve to talk about "credibility" of sources.

of which nothing shows nazareth BC

Bagatti was concerned with nazareth during Jesus' day.-
Bagatti did find locally made pottery from the first century consisting mostly of cooking pots, water jugs, and so forth. But he did not find any trace of imported vessels. There were few material remains that could be identified as houses, but what there was indicated that these structures were little more than hovels with earthen floors, sometimes incorporating caves. Bagatti found nothing that could be identified as public buildings during this time, including a “synagogue.” Based on the location of burial tombs, which would have been outside the village proper, Bagatti estimated the size of Nazareth during this period [Jesus' life]to be about ten acres with a population between 200 and 400. The remains of olive and wine presses, water cisterns, grinding stones, and other materials found scattered about, all indicate the poor, peasant nature of Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

Laughlin, John. (2006). Fifty Major Cities of the Bible.
London: Routledge, 2006. p 194.

 

[fallingblood]

The experts have come to the virtually unanimous conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure and that Nazareth existed during Jesus' day.




No, what you do is troll around sensationalist internet sites and then have the nerve to talk about "credibility" of sources.



Bagatti was concerned with nazareth during Jesus' day.-
Bagatti did find locally made pottery from the first century consisting mostly of cooking pots, water jugs, and so forth. But he did not find any trace of imported vessels. There were few material remains that could be identified as houses, but what there was indicated that these structures were little more than hovels with earthen floors, sometimes incorporating caves. Bagatti found nothing that could be identified as public buildings during this time, including a “synagogue.” Based on the location of burial tombs, which would have been outside the village proper, Bagatti estimated the size of Nazareth during this period [Jesus' life]to be about ten acres with a population between 200 and 400. The remains of olive and wine presses, water cisterns, grinding stones, and other materials found scattered about, all indicate the poor, peasant nature of Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

Laughlin, John. (2006). Fifty Major Cities of the Bible.
London: Routledge, 2006. p 194.

Do you think Bagatti is correct on the population of Nazareth at that time? I believe John Dominic Crossan supported that idea with Jonathan L. Reed, but on the other hand, if I recall right, John P Meier stated that it was possibly over a thousand (I could be remembering wrong, but I know I've seen some scholars place the population higher than 2-4 hundred). What do you think?

 

[outhouse]

No, what you do is troll around sensationalist internet sites and then have the nerve to talk about "credibility" of sources.

im out trying to learn both sides, that is not trolling. your biased so what.

the iaa is also biased, they are funded by christians and guess what happens when you go looking for christian artifacts with christian money? yes you find them. there livelihood is at stake. You can give them a big ole sloppy kiss if you want. I refuse to.

All i want is more info. Guess what, you cant deliever it. Theres no evidence for Nazareth BC.

There is not conclusive proof, you want to show me something answer when it was founded.

what it comes down to is we dont know exactly when nazareth was founded.

Ive notice a pattern with you, you always are hard on the gray side that suits your need. Picking on me is easy for taking the opposite side of the gray area and it doesnt bother me at all, im learning.

 

[fallingblood]

im out trying to learn both sides, that is not trolling. your biased so what.

the iaa is also biased, they are funded by christians and guess what happens when you go looking for christian artifacts with christian money? yes you find them. there livelihood is at stake. You can give them a big ole sloppy kiss if you want. I refuse to.

All i want is more info. Guess what, you cant deliever it. Theres no evidence for Nazareth BC.

There is not conclusive proof, you want to show me something answer when it was founded.



Ive notice a pattern with you, you always are hard on the gray side that suits your need. Picking on me is easy for taking the opposite side of the gray area and it doesnt bother me at all, im learning.

You have to understand that the gray area is a must. Even the history of Rome has gray areas. The founding of it is not definite. The reason is because we are dealing with events highly separated from the time that we live in. Definite evidence is seldom available.

 

[Oberon]

im out trying to learn both sides, that is not trolling. your biased so what.

Both sides? What sides? There are people who are highly educated in this field. Then there are amateurs who post largely inaccurate information on the interent. If you were interested in the various sides of experts, then why don't you read stuff actually written by them? If you only want to reinforce your view, then the way to do that is find sensationalist webpages written by amateurs. Which is what you do.

Objectivity doesn't mean seeking out the information you wanted to find in the first place while ignoring the mountain of actual scholarship.

You can give them a big ole sloppy kiss if you want. I refuse to.

I didn't say anything about the IAA, I said all your sources bogus websites and I have yet to see you reference any actual scholarship. Which makes your talk about credibility ridiculous.

 

[Oberon]

Do you think Bagatti is correct on the population of Nazareth at that time? I believe John Dominic Crossan supported that idea with Jonathan L. Reed, but on the other hand, if I recall right, John P Meier stated that it was possibly over a thousand (I could be remembering wrong, but I know I've seen some scholars place the population higher than 2-4 hundred). What do you think?

I have all of Meier's volumes, but I can't recall what he said offhand. I don't think we can know much other than it wasn't very big.

EDIT: He says 2,000, but I don't know where he gets the number from, he doesn't really say.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you were interested in the various sides of experts, then why don't you read stuff actually written by them?

It could be that our latrine friend doesn't have access to such sources or he doesn't know where to look. IMHO, archaeology is one of the more difficult subjects to learn how to research.