Did the village of Nazareth exist in the first century?

[outhouse]

they can tell that it fits first century (or earlier) Roman bath style

Carbon 14 dating was done on 3 samples of charcoal, each was found to come from a very different time period, indicating the bath house had been used in multiple periods, and at least was used sometime between 1300-1400, although with only 3 samples dated, it is possible for the bath house to be older



I understand what your saying but,, a few different people dont have in nailed as first century. Look at how many mistakes were made before it got labeled right [ish] Yes I did see one person who stated that but other dates were thrown out as well.

If those bath houses looked the same for a 200-500 year period then you dont have enough to go off to determine nazareths historocity

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

There isn't much.

Have you tried searching in JSTOR and google books?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Carbon 14 dating was done on 3 samples of charcoal, each was found to come from a very different time period, indicating the bath house had been used in multiple periods, and at least was used sometime between 1300-1400, although with only 3 samples dated, it is possible for the bath house to be older

That's the key. The carbon dating doesn't challenge the first century date of the bath-house, and the wiki article doesn't suggest that either.

 

[outhouse]

is there anyone besides Richard Freund that has stated its actually first century

Richard seems to do some off the deep ended theorys

 

[dogsgod]

.



Was the present day location of Nazareth decided upon in the fourth century?



.

 

[outhouse]

the first century date of the bath-house

Jesus' Bathhouse, February 2004

And the public announcement that the bathhouse is Roman has not yet been made by either the Antiquities Authority or the American archeologists.

This article goes into detail, but the above is about the best i can get into pinning a date on the bath house

 

[David M]

There is also the 1st century house excavated in Nazareth, that was announced in late 2009.

 

[dogsgod]

Let's not forget Mary's well, the site where the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear the Son of God.


Mary's Well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kathryn]

The desperation of some people to try to disprove inconvenient probabilities is amazing in a pathetic sort of way.

 

[dogsgod]

The desperation of some people to try to disprove inconvenient probabilities is amazing in a pathetic sort of way.

Yes, those annoying, pesky questions. Why can't more people just believe?

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, those annoying, pesky questions. Why can't more people just believe?

What questions? Like why it was not written about? Well how many other villages do you want to just claim didn't exist then since they were not written about either? There really aren't any annoying questions on this subject.

 

[outhouse]

There really aren't any annoying questions on this subject.

I agree

Theres so much we dont know about this place at that time. Any light shed one way or another would be of great historical interest.

If the bath house really is first century then it ties in more of the biblical story. Ofcoarse the name may have been different at that time who knows,

regarding the map in the link i posted not showing anything ofthe sort on the map, I wonder how many other small camps would have been there.

we do know there was no major settlement there

 

[David M]

The desperation of some people to try to disprove inconvenient probabilities is amazing in a pathetic sort of way.

Yes, that solid archeologic evidence is something of an inconvenient probability isn't it.

Looks like the bible was indeed mentioning a place that actually existed in the early 1st century.

Whats pathetic is when people handwave evidence away because of their desire for something not to be true.

 

[Kathryn]

There's a HUGE difference between searching objectively for truth, and trying desperately to disprove something.

Whenever we are searching for truth, it takes great self discipline to remove our own agenda from the search and to maintain objectivity.

 

[Kathryn]

we do know there was no major settlement there

The bible doesn't claim there was a "major settlement" there - whatever you mean by that term. In fact, the implication is that it's a pretty podunk place.

 

[James Humphreys]

The religious group called the Mandaeans, who claim to be direct descendants of the disciples of John the Baptist, at one time called their priesthood Nazoreans. They claim that Jesus was at one time a Nazorean of high standing, until he turned against John. I'm not sympathetic with their negative image of Jesus, but as their scriptures apparently date back to about the 2nd century, they're worthwhile to take into account as a historical source.

In the Old Testament "Nazarite" meant those who have taken vows to abstain from something. I'm not sure about the historical existence of Nazareth the village at the time of Jesus, but it should at least be considered that Jesus the Nazarene may refer to a way of life he had adopted. Jesus the Galilean clearly refers to where he is from, and would have been recognized by people living in Jerusalem.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The religious group called the Mandaeans, who claim to be direct descendants of the disciples of John the Baptist, at one time called their priesthood Nazoreans. They claim that Jesus was at one time a Nazorean of high standing, until he turned against John. I'm not sympathetic with their negative image of Jesus, but as their scriptures apparently date back to about the 2nd century, they're worthwhile to take into account as a historical source.

In the Old Testament "Nazarite" meant those who have taken vows to abstain from something. I'm not sure about the historical existence of Nazareth the village at the time of Jesus, but it should at least be considered that Jesus the Nazarene may refer to a way of life he had adopted. Jesus the Galilean clearly refers to where he is from, and would have been recognized by people living in Jerusalem.

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.

 

[fallingblood]

The religious group called the Mandaeans, who claim to be direct descendants of the disciples of John the Baptist, at one time called their priesthood Nazoreans. They claim that Jesus was at one time a Nazorean of high standing, until he turned against John. I'm not sympathetic with their negative image of Jesus, but as their scriptures apparently date back to about the 2nd century, they're worthwhile to take into account as a historical source.

In the Old Testament "Nazarite" meant those who have taken vows to abstain from something. I'm not sure about the historical existence of Nazareth the village at the time of Jesus, but it should at least be considered that Jesus the Nazarene may refer to a way of life he had adopted. Jesus the Galilean clearly refers to where he is from, and would have been recognized by people living in Jerusalem.

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.

 

[Levite]

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.

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.

 

[dogsgod]

Nazareth must be another one of those gospel truths we keep coming across.