What is the earliest evidence that Nazareth was called Nazareth?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
The Piacenza pilgrim's account (around 570 CE) reads like pure fiction, imho the localization seems to be completely unclear.

V. — Nazareth

Thence we came to the city of Nazareth, in which there are many excellent things. In the synagogue there is still the book from which our Lord was set to learn ABC. In the synagogue, too, is the bench upon which our Lord used to sit with the other children. This bench can be moved and lifted up by Christians ; but Jews cannot by any means stir it; nor does it permit itself to be carried out of doors. The house of the Blessed Mary is a basilica, and many cures are wrought in it by her garments. In the city the beauty of the Hebrew women is so great, that no more beautiful women are found among the Hebrews ; and this they say was granted them by the Blessed Mary, who they say was their mother. And though the Hebrews have no love for Christians, yet these women are all full of charity for them. This province is like a park, in corn and produce it is like Egypt ; but it excels in wine and oil, fruits, and honey. Millet, too, is there unnaturally tall, higher than the stature of a tall man.

VI.— Tabor ; Neapolis,

From Nazareth we came to Mount Tabor ...

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Salms doubts Eusebius and believes that Empress Helena located Nazareth.

Placing Nazareth on the map

For a long time the church didn’t know where Nazareth was located. Origen didn’t know, though he lived in Caesarea, while Julius Africanus seemed to locate it in Judea. It was Eusebius who first provided a location in Lower Galilee in the early fourth century:

Nazareth, from which the Christ is called Nazorean and we, who are now called Christians, were of old called Nazarenes. Today it is still located in the Galilee opposite Legio about fifteen milestones to the east near Mt. Tabor.

(Onomastikon 138.24–140.2; cf. The Myth of Nazareth p. 293.)

It is questionable from this, however, whether even Eusebius knew exactly where Nazareth was. This can be suspected because, first of all, the route from Legio (at the foot of Mt. Megiddo) was paved by the Romans towards the turn of the era and led to the major town of Diocaesarea (Sepphoris)—not to Mt. Tabor. Diocaesarea is only a couple of miles from Nazareth and one would think that Eusebius would surely signal “Nazareth close to Diocaesarea.” Secondly, Nazareth is located a full five miles away from Mt. Tabor.

Locating Nazareth with reference to Mt. Tabor, however, is interesting theologically. Mt. Tabor was—in early traditions—the site of the Transfiguration (e.g. Origen). The canonical gospels, however, portray that event as having occurred on a mountain near Caesarea Philippi (i.e., Mt. Hermon) farther to the north. Despite the explicit canonical tradition, the stronger non-canonical tradition has won the day in favor of Mt. Tabor, which has always been the acknowledged site of the Transfiguration.

As far as I’ve been able to find, Eusebius’ note in his Onomastikon is the very first literary attestation locating Nazareth in Lower Galilee. I’ve been researching Nazareth for a long time now, and strongly suspect that it must indeed have been Helena who ‘fixed’ the location of Nazareth where the tradition knows it.

... If the Empress herself took an interest in it, it would have been the simplest thing for a renaming to have taken place. No one there would have been literate, in all likelihood. Maybe this satellite of Sepphoris didn’t even have a name.

Epiphanius (Panarion 30) reports that Joseph of Tiberias built a simple ‘church’ in Nazareth (as well as in other places). This would have been within a few years of Helena’s visit. I write about this in THE MYTH OF NAZARETH (278 f). Joan Taylor, an archeologist who has studied the actual remains, detected what “seems to be the structure built by Joseph (c. 335), and nothing would suggest that the area was venerated prior to this time” (citation at MoN 285).

[StephenGoranson]

This has been discussed often.
Salm's claims do not match observations by archaeologists.
Sepphoris, unlike Nazareth, is not mentioned in NT, but was a fast-growing city at the time, needing construction workers and agricultural supply.
Sepphoris was a place said to have had minim there, or in suburbs.
Nazareth was one of 24 locations of priestly courses after the Temple was destroyed.
The inscription in Caesarea mentions Nazareth.
Etc.
For now, I add that when Epiphanius wrote that Joseph of Tiberias built a church, presumably orthodox, in Nazareth (discussed in my dissertation) it may be worth recalling that earlier Christians, at least some of them, called their places synagogues.

[Sinouhe]

This has been discussed often.
Salm's claims do not match observations by archaeologists.
Sepphoris, unlike Nazareth, is not mentioned in NT, but was a fast-growing city at the time, needing construction workers and agricultural supply.
Sepphoris was a place said to have had minim there, or in suburbs.
Nazareth was one of 24 locations of priestly courses after the Temple was destroyed.
The inscription in Caesarea mentions Nazareth.
Etc.
For now, I add that when Epiphanius wrote that Joseph of Tiberias built a church, presumably orthodox, in Nazareth (discussed in my dissertation) it may be worth recalling that earlier Christians, at least some of them, called their places synagogues.

What evidence is there that the Nazareth we know today is the Nazareth of the first century? And that the town was not chosen arbitrarily by some zealous Christians four or five centuries later.

[StephenGoranson]

The Piacenza pilgrim account is not geographically useless in this case, because the stop just before Nazareth was in Diocaesarea, that is to say, in Sepphoris, which is quite near to Nazareth. (Then on to Mount Tabor.)

The identification--rather than punctilliar--may be cumulative.
Involving NT, archaeology, rabbinic literature, etc.
Maybe Julius Africanus or his source meant, not Nazareth as a village of Judah, but of Jews--or of Judah in the other attested sense of Judea plus Galilee plus Peraea.
Such, and the Birkat haMinim--and Notsrim versions--may be relevant.
Discussed, e.g., in my dissertation (online) and in
Joel Marcus, A Jewish-Christian 'Amida?, Early Christianity 3/2 (2012) 215-225.
Apparently, there were Jewish-Christians--considered non-Christians by Epiphanius and minim by some Jews--in Sepphoris and Nazareth.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This has been discussed often.

Hi Stephen, that's what I was hoping. I suspected there is a simple answer to the question. But this doesn't seem to be the case...

The identification--rather than punctilliar--may be cumulative.

Salm's claims do not match observations by archaeologists.

What evidence is there that the Nazareth we know today is the Nazareth of the first century? And that the town was not chosen arbitrarily by some zealous Christians four or five centuries later.

My question is not Salm's question. Whether Nazareth existed or not, whether it was inhabited at the time of Jesus or not, has no bearing on my question.

The inscription in Caesarea mentions Nazareth.

The inscription may mention a place "n-z-r-t", but does that really unequivocally mean Nazareth - and even if it does, does it mean the place we know today as Nazareth? There are often several places with the same name or a similar name in a region. It also somewhat contradicts Julias Africanus and Eusebius, according to whose accounts the place is said to have been called "Nazara".

Maybe Julius Africanus or his source meant, not Nazareth as a village of Judah, but of Jews--or of Judah in the other attested sense of Judea plus Galilee plus Peraea.

Maybe ... I do not want to rule out the possibility that the place was identified as Nazareth before the earliest evidence. I'm just asking what the earliest evidence is.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

And that the town was not chosen arbitrarily by some zealous Christians four or five centuries later.

Such Christians could probably have sought Nazareth in the hills or mountains of Galilee.

Luke 4 - Jesus Rejected at Nazareth

29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill (ὄρους = hill/mountain) on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.
30 But passing through their midst, he went away.
31 And he went down (κατῆλθεν) to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them on the Sabbath, ...

[StephenGoranson]

The itinerary from Ptolemais (Akko, Acre) to Sycamina (Tel Shikmona) to the Saint Elisha monastery (in Wadi es-Siah, Nahal Siakh, with some archaeological evidence) to Diocaesarea (Sepphoris, Tzippori, Saffuriya, Eirenopolis; different spellings but the same place) to Nazareth to Mount Tabor is geographically coherent.
The spelling variations of Nazareth evidently refer to the same place.
Are you suggesting an alternate, similarly spelled place? If so, do the spellings of that one (or two?) still trouble you?
Of course, there is, according to gMatthew, also symbolic meaning, which may be "guardian, keeper, observer (of the Torah)" or the like.
Minim included Jewish-Christians, Notsrim, in Galilee, before the time of Joseph of Tiberias.

[JoeWallack]

Irony Man

Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

There is quite a bit of evidence relatively speaking that early Patristics thought "Nazareth" was in Judea:

JW:
Regarding "Mark's" (author) Jesus supposedly coming from Nazareth of Galilee to the supposed baptism, this Thread has identified the following reasons to doubt:
1 - We have problems in general with "Mark's" claimed geographical relationships.

2 - The Protevangelium of James - = An attempted harmony of the Infancy narratives does not mention "Nazareth" and implies that Jesus grew up in Judea.

3 - Sextus Julius Africanus = Says that "Nazara" is in Judea

4 - History of Joseph the Carpenter = Says that "Nazareth" is by Jerusalem.

5 - Justin Martyr = Implication that "Nazareth" was in Judea

6 - The Acts of Peter and Paul and Mary says that Nazareth is in Judea.

7 - Pseudo-Tertullian comments on 1:9 and has no mention of Nazareth

8 - The parallel verse in GMatthew 3:13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." lacks "Nazareth" (spin's favorite piece of evidence).

9 - Hippolytus Fragments = Mainly GMatthew baptism story with no unique quote of GMark and no mention of Nazareth.

10 - The parallel verse in GLuke 3:21 "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened," lacks "Nazareth".

11 - e-catena commentary on 3:21 - no mention of Nazareth.

12 - The parallel verse in GJohn 1:29 "On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" - no mention of Nazareth.

13 - e-catena GJohn - Obsession with "the lamb of god". No mentions of Nazareth of Galilee.

14 - Origen gives a detailed commentary on the contradiction between the Synoptics and GJohn regarding where Jesus went after the baptism but makes no mention of such an issue regarding where Jesus came from for the baptism.

15 - Sinaiticus, probably the most authoritative manuscript, has Nazareth as a city of Judea in Luke 1:26.

Nota Ben's:

1) Ben Smith righteously points out that there are early Patristic references to Nazareth in Galilee outside of e-catena.

2) Stephen points out two uses by Pagans of "Judea" referring to Israel in total. I think though that Patristics would generally follow the Gospels though in thinking of Galilee and Judea as distinctly separate.


Joseph

[StephenGoranson]

Judaea as Israel is inaccurate, in this case, given the exclusion of Samaria and the addition of Peraea.

Proposing that Mark 1:9 lacked "Nazaret" in the original and most early copies is a peculiar claim, given that we don't have the earliest copies, but the copies that we do have include it.
And as to what patristic writers have--though some imo make a mistaken etymythology with nazir (cf. nazirite)--they generally have Nazareth in Galilee.
I don't have at hand:
Biblia patristica : index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique
Centre d'analyse et de documentation patristiques, équipe de recherche associée au Centre national de la recherche scientifique, J. Allenbach ... [et al.].
Paris : Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975-2000.
[plus a Philo supplement, 1982]

But anyone is free to check.