No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

Autenrieth -

πόλις, πτόλις , ιος, πόληος, dat. πόληι, pl. πόληες, πόλιες, gen. πολίων, dat. πολίεσσι, acc. πόλιας, πόληας: city, the whole district and community; hence with the name in apposition (not gen.); or as a part, ἄκρη πόλις, ‘acropolis,’ ‘citadel;’ see ἄστυ.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Chances that the next post will be entertaining: 28%

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Depending on the scope of intellectual honesty, this silly issue should be put to rest.

Had you been able to read Greek, godnotgod, you would already know that "polis" is a very elastic word.

 

[fallingblood]

First century Roman military bath house in Nazareth = apple, and second century Roman military bath house in Jerusalem = orange. Roman military in Palestine had bath houses for its soldiers = fruit salad. Got it.

Except that the two are very different. First, we have no definite evidence that the bath house in Nazareth is from the first century. That in itself kills your argument. Second, the bath house in Jerusalem housed soldiers while Jerusalem was being rebuilt after a major revolt. It was a strategic area, and had a definite purpose. Not for Nazareth. In fact, we never see Nazareth revolting. We don't see the Romans rebuilding it. The reason behind the bath house in Jerusalem is very different from the one supposed in Nazareth.

Really, just because there is a bath house in Jerusalem, dated to a time after they had a major revolt, does not show that there was Roman military presence in the first century, and it definitely does not suggest there would be other Roman bath houses.

 

[fallingblood]

Ah, except for the fact that YOUR camp is the one which first came forward with the proposition, which you wish to foist upon the rest, and then claim that they have the responsibility of proof when they question the veracity of your claim!

And that matters why? It doesn't take away from the fact that the consensus is that Jesus existed. We have no reason to assume he didn't. In fact, the evidence points to him existing. Josephus alone is more than enough evidence for the existence of Jesus.

And really, if you had any idea what burden of proof means, you would see that you, who are making the extraordinary claim, have the burden of proof. The reason being that it goes against the general consensus. I don't have to prove what is already accepted to be true. You do have to prove what you claim to be true, but is not generally accepted to be true.

As for proof of Jesus, all one has to do is look at Josephus, and we have all of the proof that one needs.

The consensus that a historical Jesus lived is not an informed one, as it is based upon BELIEF and not factual information.

Show why it is not informed. Show why we shouldn't accept Josephus as a sound source. The idea is not based on belief. It is based on factual information. And really, that is regardless. You still have the burden of proof. I don't have to prove something that is already accepted to be true.

It was also a 'consensus' that the Sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat at one time, but the 'information' upon which that notion was based was proved to be erroneous.

Yes, that information was proved to be erroneous (you really should look up the idea of flat earth though). It was the general consensus. It was not overturned until someone could prove that they were not correct. However, the minority position, that the earth revolved around the sun, had the burden of proof. They couldn't just come around and say that everyone were idiots and uniformed. That would have gotten them nowhere. They had the burden of proof and had to show that there position was better than the general consensus.

Seen any WMD's lately? Oh, I forgot...the burden of proof is on ME, right? Meanwhile, how many have died for a LIE? And how many have died in wars fought in the name of a dubious 'Jesus'?

Why not just admit that you can't prove or even show a reasonable argument as to why Jesus didn't exist? You just ranting about burden of proof is asinine. The fact is this. You have the burden of proof. You have the minority opinion, you have to show that it is better than the general consensus. Why? Because one does not have to prove what is already accepted as true.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Except that the two are very different. First, we have no definite evidence that the bath house in Nazareth is from the first century. That in itself kills your argument. Second, the bath house in Jerusalem housed soldiers while Jerusalem was being rebuilt after a major revolt. It was a strategic area, and had a definite purpose. Not for Nazareth. In fact, we never see Nazareth revolting. We don't see the Romans rebuilding it. The reason behind the bath house in Jerusalem is very different from the one supposed in Nazareth.

Really, just because there is a bath house in Jerusalem, dated to a time after they had a major revolt, does not show that there was Roman military presence in the first century, and it definitely does not suggest there would be other Roman bath houses.

I think that it does. Considering that Jerusalem basically became a Roman city, there would be many more bath houses to service the population. One wouldn't cut it at all.

I don't even think that we know how many bath houses were in Rome at that time, for whatever that's worth.

 

[fallingblood]

So the Bible writers were in error, since the word 'polis' means 'town' or 'city', but they still proceeded to use the wrong word, in spite of the fact that words existed in Greek for 'village' and 'hamlet'?

No, you are just ignorant. You have not studied Greek, you really have no idea what you're talking about, and now you're just making a fool out of yourself by running around in a circle.

Polis is more than acceptable term when referring to a village. We see that to be true when the Gospel writers also name other villages, such as Bethlehem, as cities (or with the term polis).

No, the word 'polis' cannot be used to accurately describe a village because it is incorrect.

And you know this how? You have studied Greek how much? The fact that polis is used to describe a village multiple times, and with different villages shows that you are wrong.

Therefore, there must be some other reason why 'polis' was used.

The reason being that polis can be used to describe a village. Especially when there are multiple meanings for various words in Greek.

Unless, of course, such laxity is OK with you when we are dealing with a holy book.

There are various errors in the Bible. That is no problem.

"City, shmitty...what's the big deal?"

I think A_E explains this very well. If you looked at the definition of the word (and not just a simple Google search), you would see that polis is not just confined to the meaning of city.

And, if that is the case, how much laxity exists throughout the Bible that we should know about, such as, for instance, that the 'town' and 'city' of Nazareth are written about as being an actual place, but when looked for, is simply and plainly not there?

Except that we can point to a historical Nazareth. You have yet to make any logical or rational argument against Nazareth existing during that time.

So here's a question for you: Can you show an example of the Hebrew word for 'town' or 'city' being used to describe a village in the OT? And if not, why did the usage change when the NT came into existence?

And how does Hebrew factor in here? We are talking about the NT, and Koine Greek to be specific. Hebrew and Greek and very different languages, so it is illogical to compare them as you suggest.

The research I did on Bethlehem indicates that it was a town and then a city centuries before Jesus was allegedly born there. Remember that the holy family traveled there from Nazareth for the purpose of registering with the census. Therefore, there must have been official government buildings already established there.

Bethlehem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's your problem. You're assuming wikipedia is an end all source.

First, there is no reason to assume that the "holy" family traveled to Bethlehem for some census. As far as we can tell, there was no census at the time of the birth of Jesus. The census that Luke talks about didn't happen until nearly a decade after Jesus was born. And modern scholarship accepts this. Second, there is no logical reason why the "holy" family would travel to Bethlehem for a census anyway. First, they lived in Galilee, which would not have been under direct Roman rule. That means that it would not have been subject to the census. In addition, the idea that everyone had to go back to a distant distant ancestors home for a census is ridiculous. There simply is no basis for such a claim, and there is no evidence that was ever that case.

Second, a census does not mean there would have been official government buildings. If you understood the ideas of a census in ancient times, it did not require official government buildings. In fact, the census, like today, could be taken in any town really. So really, your whole statement simply is based off of ignorance.

Finally, if you look at the archeological records, in the first century, Bethlehem was just a village. Even your source doesn't disagree with that. In fact, it basically says nothing about Bethlehem in the first century.

 

[fallingblood]

I think that it does. Considering that Jerusalem basically became a Roman city, there would be many more bath houses to service the population. One wouldn't cut it at all.

I don't even think that we know how many bath houses were in Rome at that time, for whatever that's worth.

I can see what you're saying. I think with additional information, one can make the conclusion that there would have been additional bath houses. But then that would only account for the second century, but I think we're both talking about that.

I probably was a little too forceful with my argument (I'm not if forceful is the best word, but I can't think of a better word).

 

[fallingblood]

He's having a real hard time reasoning out that meanings of words change.

Especially over hundreds of years of changes in politics.

Maybe another thing is this - and I haven't thought of it before - but Greeks were only a minority of people speaking Greek in the ancient world. That had to have effected the landscape of the language.

And besides, in the Roman Empire, it was the Latin terms that denoted the status of the city - and if there were Greek equivalents, they were translated from the Latin- not the other way around.

Sometimes godnotgod is entertaining when he makes stuff up. But most of the time it lacks originality and creativity.

I had to ask my teacher about all of this, as we were discussing the polis in ancient Greece. I think one thing that we have to include is that the Gospel authors were also writing in Koine Greek, which would have effected some ideas as well. Polis would have been an easy way, in which most people would have understood, to describe a community (such as a village, town, etc).

At this point though, I think he is just willfully keeping blinders on so he can ignore anything that would disagree with his "truth."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can see what you're saying. I think with additional information, one can make the conclusion that there would have been additional bath houses. But then that would only account for the second century, but I think we're both talking about that.

Oh sure. I can rephrase: I would expect there to be some other bath houses, based on custom rather than the presence of this particular bath house in Jerusalem.

But Jerusalem, like Rome, is such a vast site that we will be discovering things from all periods (seemingly) forever.

 

[Tellurian]

Except that the two are very different. First, we have no definite evidence that the bath house in Nazareth is from the first century. That in itself kills your argument. Second, the bath house in Jerusalem housed soldiers while Jerusalem was being rebuilt after a major revolt. It was a strategic area, and had a definite purpose. Not for Nazareth. In fact, we never see Nazareth revolting. We don't see the Romans rebuilding it. The reason behind the bath house in Jerusalem is very different from the one supposed in Nazareth.

Really, just because there is a bath house in Jerusalem, dated to a time after they had a major revolt, does not show that there was Roman military presence in the first century, and it definitely does not suggest there would be other Roman bath houses.

Apparently you are in denial about the revolt by the messiah Judas of Galilee in which the city of Sepphoris was burned and was then rebuilt as a Roman city after the Roman military had defeated Judas and his forces. Having the Roman military stationed in nearby Nazareth would have been security for the new Sepphoris, which became the capitol of Galilee until the city of Tiberius was built.

Josephus later wrote about commanding military forces in Sepphoris. He also wrote about meeting and arresting a gang leader named Jesus there, after Jesus was betrayed by one of his gang and the rest of the leaders in his gang ran away.

 

[fallingblood]

Apparently you are in denial about the revolt by the messiah Judas of Galilee in which the city of Sepphoris was burned and was then rebuilt as a Roman city after the Roman military had defeated Judas and his forces. Having the Roman military stationed in nearby Nazareth would have been security for the new Sepphoris, which became the capitol of Galilee until the city of Tiberius was built.

Apparently you didn't fully read my post. If we look at the Jerusalem example that you provided, the logical thing for Sepphoris would have been to place the Roman military in Sepphoris, off the beaten path.

By the example you provided of Jerusalem, the logical place for a Roman bath house in the case of Sepphoris then would be in Sepphoris.

Josephus later wrote about commanding military forces in Sepphoris. He also wrote about meeting and arresting a gang leader named Jesus there, after Jesus was betrayed by one of his gang and the rest of the leaders in his gang ran away.

And you're point being what? When Josephus mentions Jesus, the term Christ is also used (as in, the so called Christ).

 

[fallingblood]

Oh sure. I can rephrase: I would expect there to be some other bath houses, based on custom rather than the presence of this particular bath house in Jerusalem.

But Jerusalem, like Rome, is such a vast site that we will be discovering things from all periods (seemingly) forever.

I agree fully.

 

[godnotgod]

community or body of citizens (opp. ἄστυ, their dwellings, Il.17.144, but in “δῆμός τε π. τε” Od.11.14, π. denotes the town), “ὧν π. ἀνάριθμος ὄλλυται” S.OT179(lyr.): hence,
2. state or community

So what are you saying NOW? That 'polis' means 'body of citizens', and therefore, the few who lived where Nazareth is now constituted a polis?

Not gonna buy it. The idea that the citizenry constituted a polis evolved over time, where polis originally meant city, and then was transformed into meaning both town and citizenry as a whole:

"The term polis which in archaic Greece meant city, changed with the development of the governance center in the city to indicate state (which included its surrounding villages), and finally with the emergence of a citizenship notion between the land owners it came to describe the entire body of citizens."

Polis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A handful of settlers on a rural farm does not a polis make.

And where do you see that 'polis' indicates the hamlet or village that is supposed to be 1st century Nazareth?

 

[godnotgod]

And that matters why?

The statement is self-explanatory. It matters because a preposterous claim is being made which cannot be demonstrated to be true. It cannot be demonstrated to be true simply because its premise is not factual, but founded on belief and faith. Because it cannot be so proven, those who are attempting to foist it upon others then turn the tables to place the responsibility that it is NOT true on them, and that is completely ridiculous. You are only playing childish mind games in doing so.

It doesn't take away from the fact that the consensus is that Jesus existed.

Your inability to prove that he did on the one hand, and your insistence that non-believers prove that he did not, does indeed take away from it. Just because a consensus exists does not make the reason for it existing a valid one. You are attempting to apply the idea of an 'informed consensus' to a belief, rather than to some reality. In the example I gave about Galileo, for example, he was able to prove the belief incorrect because he had factual knowledge about the real world available to him. In the case of Jesus, you are not only describing a person you claim to have existed historically, but one that is of supernatural origins as well.

We have no reason to assume he didn't. In fact, the evidence points to him existing. Josephus alone is more than enough evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Does it? There is much controversy surrounding Josephus and his 'history'. First of all, his is not a first-hand account of Jesus's life, as he was not a contemporary of Jesus. Secondly, to make the claim that his is proof enough, in light of the fact that his reference is but a paragraph or two about THE single most important man in any historical context, not to mention that it is the ONLY one, and one which is seen by many scholars as being an interpolation. On that fact alone, it cannot be trusted. Given that his is the ONLY account, we are left with little to support a historical Jesus.

If Josephus recognized Jesus as 'the Christ', why did he not convert to Christianity?

And really, if you had any idea what burden of proof means, you would see that you, who are making the extraordinary claim, have the burden of proof.

Stop trying to be clever! The 'extraordinary claim' is being made by those in YOUR camp, and ONLY by those in your camp. You are making the claim to those who originally have no position whatsoever on the matter in an attempt to convert them to your doctrinal beliefs. You are putting the first foot forward here, and that implies that you have taken the burden of proof upon yourself. Just because you are inept at such proof is no excuse to turn the tables on those you are attempting to convince. That is merely a cheap trick and sleight of hand. Now go to your room!

The reason being that it goes against the general consensus. I don't have to prove what is already accepted to be true. You do have to prove what you claim to be true, but is not generally accepted to be true.

Ah, your logic is quite faulty, though it SEEMS logical on the surface. The problem with your argument is that the reason it is accepted as true is because it is based upon BELIEF, and not FACTS. In other words, what is usually considered to be an 'informed consensus' is due to a certain body of facts which, taken as a whole, point to the probability of an idea as being true. The Theory of Evolution is a good example of this. However, we cannot show that beliefs have any such credibility to qualify as 'informed', though there may exist a consensus. Beliefs are not based upon information; they are based upon emotional and psychological conditions. The Christian has taken his body of beliefs and transformed them into Absolute Truth, essentially driving a square peg into a round hole, and thereby convincing himself that his belief system is fact.

As for proof of Jesus, all one has to do is look at Josephus, and we have all of the proof that one needs.

As discussed above, NOT!

Show why it is not informed.

I have already done that.

Show why we shouldn't accept Josephus as a sound source.

Done.

The idea is not based on belief. It is based on factual information.

Account of Josephus is not first-hand; you take it as factual based upon your belief that it is, for reasons peculiar to your view.

And really, that is regardless. You still have the burden of proof. I don't have to prove something that is already accepted to be true.

If you cannot demonstrate it to be true, then it is true only insofar as your faith that it is true says it is. That others also believe it to be true is because others also believe it to be true. As Alan Watts said:

'Christians are like men huddled in the dark, shouting to lend comfort to one another'.

If enough people keep shouting, they will eventually believe that what they are shouting about is true, as if their numbers and their shouting are sufficient proof of their claims. That is not how we arrive at truth and reality.

Yes, that information was proved to be erroneous (you really should look up the idea of flat earth though). It was the general consensus. It was not overturned until someone could prove that they were not correct. However, the minority position, that the earth revolved around the sun, had the burden of proof. They couldn't just come around and say that everyone were idiots and uniformed. That would have gotten them nowhere. They had the burden of proof and had to show that there position was better than the general consensus.

Again, your logic is quite faulty. Are you aware that a negative cannot be proven? That is what you are asking others to do. You are comparing two things (Jesus vs. Galileo) which are not the same. Galileo was not proving a negative; he was just demonstrating what was actually the case. It was not so much that his was a minority view that he assumed the burden of proof, but because the dogma of the geocentric theory was held by a ruthless dictatorship that was the Church which forced the burden of proof on him. The Church's position was, like yours, that it was not required to prove anything. Why should they? They, like you, held the dominant position, not because their facts were straight, but because they ruled by force.

Why not just admit that you can't prove or even show a reasonable argument as to why Jesus didn't exist? You just ranting about burden of proof is asinine. The fact is this. You have the burden of proof. You have the minority opinion, you have to show that it is better than the general consensus. Why? Because one does not have to prove what is already accepted as true.

You can claim that a Magic Heffalump exists, which I cannot prove does NOT exist, but until you can prove that it DOES exist, as far as anyone is concerned, it does not exist, in spite of the fact that many people BELIEVE that it exists, because the reasons they believe it exists have nothing to do with facts. You don't seem to understand the difference between reality and beliefs about reality. What you should be asking yourself is: 'Why do I believe what I believe?'

 

[godnotgod]

And that matters why? It doesn't take away from the fact that the consensus is that Jesus existed. We have no reason to assume he didn't. In fact, the evidence points to him existing.

You see, fallingblood, the problem goes much deeper than this. The fatal flaw the theologians made was to try to prove the existence of God, to make Jesus a historical figure, when Jesus himself stated that he was NOT a product of history:

'Before Abraham was, I AM'

In other words, what Jesus is really about is not his historicity, but his essence, and his essence is outside of history, outside of time. In order for you to understand this, you must undergo a spiritual transformation yourself. It is not enough to merely believe; you must experience, and when you have this experience, proof is unimportant. Conversion is even less important, because one realizes, via of the authentic spiritual experience, that there is nothing to convert to. Doctrine is not reality, and reality is doctrineless. The problem is that the true nature of the spiritual experience, which is mystical, became orthodox belief and dogma over time. Then it became dead, and found itself wallowing in trying to prove itself via logic and reason. If it had remained closer to the source that is the mystical, and avoided having to convert the world to its doctrinal views, it would be a much more powerful teaching. But in its aggressive attempts to win minds over to its 'side' via coercion and fear mongering, it ends up losing that which it attempts to gain. That is to say, it must use these tactics to keep its flock together, rather than real spiritual truth and freedom.

The mystical view does not need to convert others to any particular view; all it need do is to point to the way things are in reality, rather than to a doctrine about reality.

 

[godnotgod]

No, you are just ignorant. You have not studied Greek, you really have no idea what you're talking about, and now you're just making a fool out of yourself by running around in a circle.

I'm merely chasing after you.

Polis is more than acceptable term when referring to a village. We see that to be true when the Gospel writers also name other villages, such as Bethlehem, as cities (or with the term polis).
And you know this how? You have studied Greek how much? The fact that polis is used to describe a village multiple times, and with different villages shows that you are wrong.
The reason being that polis can be used to describe a village. Especially when there are multiple meanings for various words in Greek.

The information I have is that, at the time of Jesus's birth, Bethlehem was a town, and not a village.

Nazareth is never referred to as the 'village' or 'hamlet' of Nazareth, as you have described it to be. If polis is being used to mean 'village' or 'hamlet' by the Gospel writers, why do our English Bibles always refer to it as 'city' or 'town'? It is because 'polis' means 'city' or 'town' and NOT 'village' or 'hamlet'. As I stated earlier, the Greeks had words already at their disposal for such places. (ie: 'kōmas).

In Mark 6:56, the distinction between 'cities', 'villages' and 'countryside' [hamlets] is made all in the same sentence:

"And whithersoever __ he entered into villages or cities or country..."

where 'villages' = kōmas, 'cities' = poleis, and 'hamlets' = agrous.

There are various errors in the Bible. That is no problem.
I think A_E explains this very well. If you looked at the definition of the word (and not just a simple Google search), you would see that polis is not just confined to the meaning of city.

But if you had understood the idea in context, you would see that 'polis' as 'citizenry' is part and parcel of 'city', but a concept which came AFTER that of 'polis' as 'city' had already been established.

Except that we can point to a historical Nazareth. You have yet to make any logical or rational argument against Nazareth existing during that time.

You can point all you wish, but no Nazareth, historical or othewise, do we find. You have yet to show any hard evidence for it having existed. The fact that no hard evidence exists is proof that it did NOT exist, at least until shown otherwise. All you can say as a Christian is: 'The NT says Nazareth existed, at least as a village, and though the current evidence shows no such place, I believe such evidence to be forthcoming which will settle the question." You CANNOT state: 'The NT says Nazareth existed, therefore it existed, no matter what the hard evidence says'.

And how does Hebrew factor in here? We are talking about the NT, and Koine Greek to be specific. Hebrew and Greek and very different languages, so it is illogical to compare them as you suggest.
There's your problem. You're assuming wikipedia is an end all source.

Equivalent meaning.

First, there is no reason to assume that the "holy" family traveled to Bethlehem for some census. As far as we can tell, there was no census at the time of the birth of Jesus. The census that Luke talks about didn't happen until nearly a decade after Jesus was born. And modern scholarship accepts this. Second, there is no logical reason why the "holy" family would travel to Bethlehem for a census anyway. First, they lived in Galilee, which would not have been under direct Roman rule. That means that it would not have been subject to the census. In addition, the idea that everyone had to go back to a distant distant ancestors home for a census is ridiculous. There simply is no basis for such a claim, and there is no evidence that was ever that case.

However, that is the 'informed con-census', therefore it must be true.

Second, a census does not mean there would have been official government buildings. If you understood the ideas of a census in ancient times, it did not require official government buildings. In fact, the census, like today, could be taken in any town really. So really, your whole statement simply is based off of ignorance.

Shush, child. You like to wag your tongue freely, calling others ignorant, when yours is displayed constantly.

If not buildings, then infrastructure. A census would require governmental infrastructure and organization at some level, something a hamlet or small village would not be likely to have in place. A hamlet or village would generally be subject to a larger town or city, and operate under its jurisdiction. A polis would include surrounding villages and hamlets.

Finally, if you look at the archeological records, in the first century, Bethlehem was just a village. Even your source doesn't disagree with that. In fact, it basically says nothing about Bethlehem in the first century.

It states that it existed long before, as I recall, in 1400BC, which Wiki refers to it then as being a 'town'. In the 3rd century BC, a temple was erected there. The OT refers to it as the 'city of David'.

Luke 2:4, 1 Samuel 20:6, 1 Samuel 17:12, 1 Chronicles 11:17, and 2 Samuel 23:15 all refer to Bethlehem as a 'city'.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A handful of settlers on a rural farm does not a polis make.

And where do you see that 'polis' indicates the hamlet or village that is supposed to be 1st century Nazareth?

Yes. Your authority on this matter is unquestioned, having read the NT and other Greek sources of the era many times.

I was right. Your next post wasn't funny at all.

You're challenging THE premier Greek lexicon on the basis of a quote you didn't bother to understand.

I'd bet a buffalo nickel that you didn't bother to look up what you think are the Greek words for "hamlet" and "village." Maybe you couldn't even look them up in a lexicon because you're struggling so much with something so elementary.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sing to me while you read this:

Chaonians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chaonians were settled Kata Komas (Greek: Κατά Κώμα&#962 meaning in a collection of villages and not in an organized polis (despite the fact that they called their community a polis) and were a tribal state in the 5th century BC.[6]