No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

The non-Biblical reference is not to Eusebius's allusion to Nazara, but to that of Africanus. Eusebius is just citing Africanus.

Unreliable is unreliable. If Eusebius is unreliable because he is a Christian - in other words, if we would disregard his own testimony that Nazareth exists - why on earth would we trust his citation of 'Africanus'?

Your bias is silly.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can somebody just 'list' what evidence we have for the community 'Nazareth' to have existed in NT times?

Not really. When one doesn't understand on a fundamental level what the gospels are from a historical and literary (not spiritual) perspective, then one isn't capable of understanding what evidence is. But we have archaeological evidence going back before the first century.

 

[godnotgod]

Clearly you don't read stuff before you spam it.

I did read it.

The Sinaiticus manuscript was discovered by a German textual critic and collector named Count Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Von Tischendorf. We will call him Count Tischendorf.

Count Tischendorf says he found what came to be called Codex Sinaitucs in a “basket” filled with old parchment being used to start fires to keep monks warm. Here is his account:

“I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.”

Codex Sinaiticus: Found In a Waste Basket | Bible Believers Fellowship of Worthington,OH

 

[godnotgod]

Unreliable is unreliable. If Eusebius is unreliable because he is a Christian - in other words, if we would disregard his own testimony that Nazareth exists - why on earth would we trust his citation of 'Africanus'?

Because the citation re: Nazara by Africanus is verifiable. What is unreliable is the reference, whether by a Christian or a non-Christian, that a 1st century Nazareth existed, because it is not being written until 200 AD, and not because of any religious bias.

 

[oldbadger]

Not really. When one doesn't understand on a fundamental level what the gospels are from a historical and literary (not spiritual) perspective, then one isn't capable of understanding what evidence is. But we have archaeological evidence going back before the first century.

what i thought.
no evidence for a nazareth, so far.

 

[Dingbat]

So you're the one. Can I get a reduction on my rent?

Since you asked so nicely...yes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We will call him Count Tischendorf.

No, we won't. He's referred to in the literature only by his surname - Tischendorf. Everyone knows who you're talking about in this context.

It's neither here not there, though. I was taught that Mr. T found the manuscript's fragments as toilet paper and such because they couldn't read Greek. It is certainly plausible that some of it was found in a garbage bin, but it's more likely that somebody doesn't know how to read German and he's simply saying that it was treated like garbage. Given the state of the manuscript -- it is in remarkably good condition -- it probably never saw the inside of what we consider to be a garbage bin. If it was, the garbage bin was well maintained - perfectly clean - and never taken out.

It's not like there's mustard stains on the manuscript.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Because the citation re: Nazara by Africanus is verifiable. What is unreliable is the reference, whether by a Christian or a non-Christian, that a 1st century Nazareth existed, because it is not being written until 200 AD, and not because of any religious bias.

This is exceptionally poor thinking. Where is the citation verifiable? Did Africanus write about Nazareth independently of Eusebius? If not, the citation is not verifiable. It would be great if there were other writers who cited Africanus's mentioning of Nazareth.

Eusebius is a Christian historian / apologist. When he quotes someone, it's to his advantage and promotes his Christian agenda. This is NOT a non-Christian reference. At best, it's a Christian using a non-Christian for Christian apologetic purposes. At worst, Eusebius is just making it up.

I will eat my shorts on YouTube if this is verifiable. I'll sweeten the pot - I'll not shower for three days wearing the same underwear every day, then stuff those undies in my mouth for at least 30 seconds as punishment for my carelessness and stupidity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was taught that Mr. T found the manuscript's fragments as toilet paper and such because they couldn't read Greek

Why would that matter? It was written in the Jesus dialect of Aramaic, a dialect very related to Pauline Syriac.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Everyone knows that the first Christians were dumb-nuts stupid, but who were the biggest morons? Those who fabricated a messiah from a fabricated town and tried to sell it in the diaspora, or those in the diaspora who, having more than a passing familiarity with the Palestinian landscape, never thought to suggest that neither the sect nor the city existed? It is fortunate for both that their opponents were no less ignorant and incompetent: apparently not a single Roman Cynic or diaspora Jew thought to ask: "What Jesus? What Nazareth?"

The mythicist mantra is little more than pathetic ad hominem floating in preposterous drivel.​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

 

[outhouse]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

They have been drinking the myther koolaid for so long, they forgot what a real drink was all about

 

[DawudTalut]

Your source states:


Although mentioned in the New Testament gospels, there are no extant non-biblical references to Nazareth until around 200 AD, when Sextus Julius Africanus, cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), speaks of “Nazara” as a village in "Judea" and locates it near an as-yet unidentified “Cochaba.

There are no references to any 'Nazareth' in the OT or the Talmud as well, nor in any 1st century historical records.

Peace be on all.
THE POSSIBLE REASONS OF NO MENTION OF NAZARETH IN EARLY YEARS

The Basilica of the Annunciation
James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[37] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to “a maximum of about 480.”[38] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[39]

From the following [40] verse in the Gospel of Luke:

[And they led Jesus] to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.[Lk. 4:29]

Some have argued that ancient Nazareth might have been built on the hillside. Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957. From the ninth century CE tradition associated Christ's evasion of the attempt on his life to the 'Hill of the Leap' (Jabal al-Qafza) overlooking the Jezreel Plain, some 3 km (2 mi) south of Nazareth.[41]

Matthew 2:19-23 reads:

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead." So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

In the Gospel of John, Nathaniel asks, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"[1:46] The meaning of this cryptic question is debated. Some commentators and scholars suggest that it means Nazareth was very small and unimportant, but the question does not speak of Nazareth’s size but of its goodness. In fact, Nazareth was described negatively by the evangelists; the Gospel of Mark argues that Nazareth did not believe in Jesus and therefore he could "do no mighty work there";[Mk 6:5] in the Gospel of Luke, the Nazarenes are portrayed as attempting to kill Jesus by throwing him off a cliff;[Lk 4:29] in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, and in all four canonical gospels, we read the famous saying that "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country.[42] "[43] .....

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

 

[godnotgod]

Did Africanus write about Nazareth independently of Eusebius?

Apparently.


The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus
I.--The Epistle to Aristides
V.

But as up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews had been registered in the public archives, and those, too, which were traced back to the proselytes [1028] --as, for example, to Achior the Ammanite, and Ruth the Moabitess, and those who left Egypt along with the Israelites, and intermarried with them--Herod, knowing that the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to him, and goaded by the consciousness of his ignoble birth, burned the registers of their families. This he did, thinking that he would appear to be of noble birth, if no one else could trace back his descent by the public register to the patriarchs or proselytes, and to that mixed race called georae. [1029] A few, however, of the studious, having private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting at them in some other way from the archives, pride themselves in preserving the memory of their noble descent; and among these happen to be those already mentioned, called desposyni, [1030] on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. And these coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages, to other parts of the country, set forth the above-named genealogy [1031] as accurately as possible from the Book of Days. [1032] Whether, then, the case stand thus or not, no one could discover a more obvious explanation, according to my own opinion and that of any sound judge. And let this suffice us for the matter, although it is not supported by testimony, because we have nothing more satisfactory or true to allege upon it. The Gospel, however, in any case states the truth.

Writings of Julius Africanus

 

[godnotgod]

No, we won't. He's referred to in the literature only by his surname - Tischendorf. Everyone knows who you're talking about in this context.

You're misreading. The author of the blog is saying:

"The Sinaiticus manuscript was discovered by a German textual critic and collector named Count Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Von Tischendorf. We will call him Count Tischendorf. [for our purposes here]."

It's neither here not there, though. I was taught that Mr. T found the manuscript's fragments as toilet paper and such because they couldn't read Greek. It is certainly plausible that some of it was found in a garbage bin, but it's more likely that somebody doesn't know how to read German and he's simply saying that it was treated like garbage. Given the state of the manuscript -- it is in remarkably good condition -- it probably never saw the inside of what we consider to be a garbage bin. If it was, the garbage bin was well maintained - perfectly clean - and never taken out.

It's not like there's mustard stains on the manuscript.

As Tischendorf stated, the trash container was not a garbage bin, but a basket full of parchments slated for burning to keep the nuns warm.

 

[oldbadger]

Peace be on all.
THE POSSIBLE REASONS OF NO MENTION OF NAZARETH IN EARLY YEARS


Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

Hello Dawud....

I read the Wiki article.

At this time is would seem that Nazareth can only exist through faith, assumption or presumption. Look at extracts from that article:-
In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."
No....... Yardenna uncovered a house, and then presumed that it was part of some undiscovered village. Neither has evidence of the name of the locality been discovered. So...... No evidence for Naxareth, yet.

Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957.
Authors such as D. Crosson write that Nazareth was built higher up than all other surrounding villages, because it had an unusual high level spring which allowed the community to build around it. Ergo the new Nazareth may, just may, be on top of any evidence.

From the ninth century CE tradition associated Christ's evasion of the attempt on his life to the 'Hill of the Leap' (Jabal al-Qafza) overlooking the Jezreel Plain, some 3 km (2 mi) south of Nazareth.[41]
Here, tradition is attempting to become evidence. The first possible 'cliff' adjacent to proposed Nazareth has been chosen, in what could be a 'Look...... here..... this will do!' kind of scenario.

I've got no problems with a 'faith' Nazareth or even a 'Guessed at Nazareth', but at this time, there is no evidence for a Nazareth, in my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Peace be on all.
THE POSSIBLE REASONS OF NO MENTION OF NAZARETH IN EARLY YEARS

The Basilica of the Annunciation
James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[37] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to “a maximum of about 480.”[38]

So how do you explain that Josephus, who lived in Japha, only one mile from Nazareth, never mentioned it:

"In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).

A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.

Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.

Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!

With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth."

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[39]

"A deplorable modern Christian tradition is to call an attention-grabbing press conference in the days before the Christmas holiday. The intent is to garner maximum publicity for some sensational "Jesus discovery".

In 2009 it was a "Jesus-era house", located conveniently close to the Church of the Annunciation.

The finds that captured the international headlines in December, were uncovered months earlier and more prosaically reported as "two rock-cuttings in the bedrock and the remains of a large building dated to the Mamluk period."

By the holiday, they had become "the first house from the time of Jesus", and a hidden pit, interpreted as "Jewish preparations for the impending war with Rome".

Hey, something for Christians and Jews!

The fact that the archaeologist, Yardenna Alexandre – involved at "Mary's Well" in 1998 – was sponsored by the Nazareth Municipality and the Israeli Tourist Board, clearly had no influence on her gushing "breaking news". Nor was it pertinent that the site was within a new international Christian centre being funded by French Roman Catholics.

What, stoop to the level of cheap sensationalism to keep the circus on the road?"

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
From the following [40] verse in the Gospel of Luke:

[And they led Jesus] to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.[Lk. 4:29]

Some have argued that ancient Nazareth might have been built on the hillside. Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957. From the ninth century CE tradition associated Christ's evasion of the attempt on his life to the 'Hill of the Leap' (Jabal al-Qafza) overlooking the Jezreel Plain, some 3 km (2 mi) south of Nazareth.[41]

"Nazareth, in fact, is located in a depression, set within gentle hills. The whole region is characterized by plains and mild rises with no sharp peaks or steep cliffs. The terrain is correctly understood as a high basin, for in one direction is the much lower Plain of Esdraelon. But there is no disguising Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. Even the mediaeval town sat below the summit – protected from the wind. Beginning only in 1957, the Jewish suburb called 'Nazerat Illit' ('Upper Nazareth') was built to the top of the hills to the east of the city."

So the Biblical account is erroneous. No brow of the hill; no city on a hill; still no Nazareth.


Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
Matthew 2:19-23 reads:

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead." So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Except for the fact that:

In the New Testament book of Acts, Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:

"We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5)

What is a Nazarene

In the Gospel of John, Nathaniel asks, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"[1:46] The meaning of this cryptic question is debated. Some commentators and scholars suggest that it means Nazareth was very small and unimportant, but the question does not speak of Nazareth’s size but of its goodness. In fact, Nazareth was described negatively by the evangelists; the Gospel of Mark argues that Nazareth did not believe in Jesus and therefore he could "do no mighty work there";[Mk 6:5] in the Gospel of Luke, the Nazarenes are portrayed as attempting to kill Jesus by throwing him off a cliff;[Lk 4:29] in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, and in all four canonical gospels, we read the famous saying that "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country.[42] "[43] .....

Weak...

 

[oldbadger]

The fact that the archaeologist, Yardenna Alexandre – involved at "Mary's Well" in 1998 – was sponsored by the Nazareth Municipality and the Israeli Tourist Board...........................

Oh dear...... so much for any evidence from that quarter, not that any could be seen........ You can almost see the jury shifting in discomfort as they groan out loud. :thud:

 

[oldbadger]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

Let's all take a break....... and read a proverb!

Hang on......:sad: there's a few of those in the bible! ? :yes:
Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.

 

[Mycroft]

There's no evidence for much of what goes on in the Bible. 1st Century Nazareth is just another in a long string.