Metis , you are wrong here , let me at least explain why do i say this
Archaeologists have been excavating first-century Nazareth since the mid-2000's.
The town of Nazareth (and not just the title 'of Nazareth') is named in all four gospels. The synoptic gospels were written before the death od Peter and Paul. Considering that the Messiah was expected to come from Bethlehem in the country of Judea, it makes absolutely no sense to claim that the early Church, within the next years of the crucifixion, fabricated an entire home town for Jesus and then placed it in the wrong country. It makes even less sense that the gospel of John would go out of its way to note that Nazareth had a less than stellar reputation among the Judeans. And it makes even less sense that the early Church would try to sell all of this to actual Galileans within the next years of when the events supposedly took place.
The town of Nazareth is mentioned by Origen and Julius Africanus in the second century. A fourth century Jewish inscription mentions that the town of Nazareth existed in the early second century, around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The fourth century historian Eusebius, who lived within fifty miles of Nazareth, mentions it in his Ecclesiastical History.
it really doesn't matter that there's no mention of Nazareth dating from before the third century, because archaeological studies of the area show that not only was it there, but it had been there for at least five hundred years before the time of Jesus. In fact there's evidence of some sort of settlement in the area going back well into the stone age.
And if we take that analogy , I can also prove Julius Ceasar didn't exist. It might sound crazy, but if you ignore all the references to Julius Ceasar written before the third century, then, amazingly, there are no references to Julius Ceasar before the third century! None whatsoever!
Apart from those there are, obviously, but they are clearly made up, because if he really existed there would be references to him,apart from those ones. So it is a conspiracy...
We don't make conclusions like that.
There are references to Nazareth in the first century.
There are references to Nazareth in the second century.
There are references to Nazareth in the third century.
There are no references to Nazareth before the first century because it was a place of no importance where nothing ever happened.But it was there, it is checked. And once somebody important was born there it got mentioned repeatedly thereafter.
There is absolutely no historical problem with the existence of Nazareth and no reason to suppose Jesus wasn't from there.
An excavation of a first century home in… take a guess...
View attachment 97783
