The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[dogsgod]

Just because our often sparce textual records do not mention a particular town until Mark doesn't mean anything. Archaeology is a far better tool in this case, and lo and behold the little village is there!

Sparse textual records? Perhaps, however:

Josephus mentioned 45 cities in Galilee alone, but not Nazareth.

Nazareth is not mentioned along with the 63 towns of Galilee named in the Talmud.

Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor the Apocrypha, nor in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth is not mentioned by historians or geographers prior to the fourth century CE.

 

[Oberon]

There? And where would that be?

Galilee. http://www.nazarethvillage.com/research/

 

[McBell]

Galilee. Home | Nazareth Village Research

 

[Oberon]

I find it interesting. A reconstruction of the village. Kind of cool. More relevant for this theard is the methodology section, where they get into HOW they are reconstructing 1st century nazareth.

 

[Oberon]

Sepphoris’s neighbor, Nazareth, was just a small village in the first century CE, having been founded some time in the third century BCE. By one estimate, it occupied approximately sixty acres and probably had around 480 inhabitants. It is not mentioned at all prior to the Gospels, and they provide only minimal information about it. All four regard the village as the hometown of Jesus, and John suggests that it was not a notable town. According to the synoptics, Nazareth had a synagogue, which served as the setting for Jesus’s preaching and rejection by the villagers. Josephus makes no reference to it at all. Tombs from the Early and Middle Roman periods (and later) have been found around Nazareth, demarcating its ancient boundaries, as well as in the vicinity of the nearby modern city, Nazareth ’Illit. Of these, one, dating to the first or second century CE, contained an ossuary, indicating the practice of secondary burial. 104 The tombs of Nazareth are less known among students of Early Roman Palestine than the famous Greek inscription found there, probably dating to the mid-first century CE, of an imperial decree prohibiting grave-robbing. More famous still are Nazareth’s Christian holy sites, which have been extensively excavated. In fact, they are practically the only parts of the ancient settlement that have been excavated, due to the density of construction and population in the modern city. Significant remains from the Roman and Byzantine eras have been discovered near and under the Church of the Annunciation, the Church of St Joseph, and the site presently occupied by the Sisters of Nazareth. Various chambers, tunnels, cavities, pits, cisterns, oil presses and granaries have been found, attesting to the village’s agricultural activity. The remains underneath the Church of the Annunciation have received the most attention by far. Particularly important are architectural fragments – capitals and column bases and moldings – which Bagatti, the primary excavator, interprets as remains of a synagogue dating from the second through the fourth century CE. Joan E. Taylor has argued, however, that “the form of the building... bears no resemblance whatsoever to a synagogue,” pointing out that the structure was oriented toward the north, facing away from Jerusalem – an atypical orientation for a synagogue. Furthermore, fragments such as these could come from either a synagogue or a church. In short, the remains are not necessarily from a synagogue at all; even if they are, they date to a later period than the first century CE. Other especially relevant finds in Nazareth include a stepped basin, the bottom of which is decorated with a mosaic, found underneath St Joseph’s church. Bagatti interpreted this basin as a mikveh, but as Taylor has pointed out, the decoration of a mikveh with a mosaic is extremely unusual. In any case, the basin dates to the Late Roman or Byzantine period. Bagatti also refers to fragments of large (26 cm diameter), vase-like stone vessels, of uncertain date, and two stone feet, one marble and one of stone, also of uncertain date, found in a cistern beneath the Church of the Annunciation. Bagatti suggests that Crusaders may have deposited the votive feet in the church at some point. Given uncertainty regarding their place and date of origin, we cannot consider them evidence of paganism in first-century CE Nazareth.

Chancey, Mark A. Myth of a Gentile Galilee : The Population of Galilee and New Testament Studies.
Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. pp. 83-85.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sparse textual records? Perhaps, however:

Josephus mentioned 45 cities in Galilee alone, but not Nazareth.

Nazareth is not mentioned along with the 63 towns of Galilee named in the Talmud.

Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor the Apocrypha, nor in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth is not mentioned by historians or geographers prior to the fourth century CE.

Where was the supposed (synagogue) Luke mentions in 4:16? I've been trying to figure out if there was any confirmations of a synagogue in Nazareth during the time of the supposed Yeshua. I'm running into brick walls here because the archeology says none were ever found but all of these gospels are echoing this Yeshua of Nazareth and Luke goes as far to mention synagogue..........Addiditonally..why are there tombs in Nazareth. I don't mean "around" Nazareth but (in) Nazareth???? I'm told that custom was not to live near the dead. The tombs were usually outside the town/city......

Interesting...very interesting...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Nazareth of course derives from the aramaic word, Jesus the Nazorean...
Which is to do with a religious "office" as opposed to a town

 

[Oberon]

Where was the supposed (synagogue) Luke mentions in 4:16?

He doesn't.

 

[Oberon]

Nazareth of course derives from the aramaic word, Jesus the Nazorean...
Which is to do with a religious "office" as opposed to a town

"Of course" because you say so? Source?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
Where was the supposed (synagogue) Luke mentions in 4:16?

He doesn't.

He sure does.

RVKJV
4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Now before anyone says...well that's the KJV or (Poor DP you don't read Greek so how would you know?) Then I would say that you're not being honest. Not only is it in their KJV but it's in the 1550 Textus Receptus, 1894 Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority, Horton & Westscott. It's even in the Latin Vulgate.

We also find the translation in ASV, RSV, Bible in Basic English, Darby's English Translation, Douay Rheims, Noah Webster Bible, Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible, and Young's Literal Translation.

So Yes....Luke did say it. I'm not as concerned that he said it. I'm not sure why you made a big deal of it because from "Gospel Sources" we have it's there. No. I'm interested as to why he says this when archeology has not found any synagogues in Nazareth during the supposed time of Yeshua.

 

[blueman]

Where was the supposed (synagogue) Luke mentions in 4:16? I've been trying to figure out if there was any confirmations of a synagogue in Nazareth during the time of the supposed Yeshua. I'm running into brick walls here because the archeology says none were ever found but all of these gospels are echoing this Yeshua of Nazareth and Luke goes as far to mention synagogue..........Addiditonally..why are there tombs in Nazareth. I don't mean "around" Nazareth but (in) Nazareth???? I'm told that custom was not to live near the dead. The tombs were usually outside the town/city......

Interesting...very interesting...

Why would there be anything unusual about a synagogue being located in a town or city primarily populated by Jews??? You are really stretching this to the nth degree. It will be fairly difficult for you to challenge Luke regarding the level of precision in his writing in referencing people, places and things. Not only was he a physician, but also a historian who took his craft very seriously and was extremely cautious in striking a high level of accuracy in his accounts of said events. Below is a link to more detail regarding Dr. Luke.

Luke, The Greek Historian

 

[McBell]

Why would there be anything unusual about a synagogue being located in a town or city primarily populated by Jews??? You are really stretching this to the nth degree. It will be fairly difficult for you to challenge Luke regarding the level of precision in his writing in referencing people, places and things. Not only was he a physician, but also a historian who took his craft very seriously and was extremely cautious in striking a high level of accuracy in his accounts of said events. Below is a link to more detail regarding Dr. Luke.

Luke, The Greek Historian

Wow.
Way to completely twist what was ACTUALLY said into what you want it to have said...

You truly are the master of the strawman.

Though I would be careful were I you.
Some people look at that kind of thing as being dishonest....
Especially given the fact you are pretty much bearing false witness....

TWO things the Ten Commandments say is a no no...

 

[blueman]

Wow.
Way to completely twist what was ACTUALLY said into what you want it to have said...

You truly are the master of the strawman.

Though I would be careful were I you.
Some people look at that kind of thing as being dishonest....
Especially given the fact you are pretty much bearing false witness....

TWO things the Ten Commandments say is a no no...

With all due respect, what are you talking about in regards to false witness???

 

[McBell]

With all due respect, what are you talking about in regards to false witness???

Your strawman is bearing false witness.

 

[blueman]

Your strawman is bearing false witness.

In what way??? Be specific

 

[McBell]

In what way??? Be specific

When you misrepresent his "argument", you are in effect claiming he said something he did not.

Thus you are claiming he said X when in fact he said Z.
Therefore you are bearing false witness.

 

[blueman]

When you misrepresent his "argument", you are in effect claiming he said something he did not.

Thus you are claiming he said X when in fact he said Z.
Therefore you are bearing false witness.

Did he not question as to whether there was a synagogue in Nazareth? My repsonse underscored that it was plausible for there to be one in a town primarily populated by the Jewish community. How's that false teaching?

 

[McBell]

False teaching?
Man, you really are twisting things about.

Though I suspect you are not doing it intentionally.

 

[dogsgod]

I came across this little tidbit:

Finally, scholars have long noted that the first evangelist appears to locate Jesus' home not in Nazareth, but in Capernaum (Mk 2:1) where also his family resides (Mk 6:3) Nazarene (word) wiki



Mk 2 :1Several days later, Jesus returned to Capernaum and it was reported that he was at home.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I came across this little tidbit:

Finally, scholars have long noted that the first evangelist appears to locate Jesus' home not in Nazareth, but in Capernaum (Mk 2:1) where also his family resides (Mk 6:3) Nazarene (word) wiki



Mk 2 :1Several days later, Jesus returned to Capernaum and it was reported that he was at home.

Would be nice wouldn't it...?

"Except"....None of their bible translators render it that way......