Evidence for first-century Nazareth?

[steve43]

FWIW, Josephus writes that Galilee at that time was very bountiful and prosperous, and there were people everywhere. Wherever there was a significant spring, there was probably a town. No reason the make up Nazareth. Lots of towns of 2,000 have been lost to history.

[ficino]

FWIW, Josephus writes that Galilee at that time was very bountiful and prosperous, and there were people everywhere. Wherever there was a significant spring, there was probably a town. No reason the make up Nazareth. Lots of towns of 2,000 have been lost to history.

Yes, you're referring to BJ 3.43 and Vita 235, the latter passage saying that there were 204 poleis and komai in Galilee and Gaulanitis. In the Vita and BJ he names 35 settlements in Galilee and 5 in Gaulanitis. Chaim ben David, “Were there 204 settlements in Galilee at the time of Flavius Josephus?” Journal of Jewish Studies 52.1 (2011) 21-36, concludes from various criteria that Josephus’ 204 is probably accurate for the time prior to the first revolt.

Your post doesn't answer my OP, though, Steve - I do note your prefatory FWIW. I don't want to be told that there probably was a town in some place or other. I am looking for academic studies that give evidence to support the view that Nazareth was a distinct, named community in the first three decades of the first century.

I don't know what your 2,000 refers to, by the way.

The closest thing I've seen so far is the statement by Yardenna Alexandre, the archeologist who excavated the house next to the church in present-day Nazareth, that she also dug up a pit with pottery shards. She said this pit apparently had a camouflaged entrance. She said it resembles pits in other villages that were dug for defense at the time of the first Revolt, i.e. c. 67 CE. See link:

http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/IsraelExperience/ ... -2009.aspx

To my knowledge, Alexandre has not published a report of the 2009 excavation. The pottery shards found in the house are placed as Early Roman, i.e. 1st-2nd century CE. From what I've read, there was a type of pottery used over a long period, so dating by it is not precise. The house could very well have been built later than the time of Jesus; we have no actual evidence that it existed during his purported lifetime, or that any "Nazareth" existed then.

This doesn't prove there was no Nazareth during those years. But it doesn't help to say there probably was one.

[spin]

I find the question as to the existence of Nazareth to be beside the point when an examination of the gospels shows that Nazareth was not part of the earliest available Jesus traditions in those gospels.

Very credible point.

But having a dump like Nazareth not mentioned when building divinity to compete against the emperor, is to be expected.


There was a good spring there, there is NO reason Spin to think displaced peasants would not use that resource.

In a time where there were many displaced peasants due to the Hellenistic governement making peasant life difficult to feed Sepphoris and all the new inhabitants. 10,000 to 20,000 people living on that hill would have a impact on those who lived in the area. A good water source would have been used.

A agrarian work camp to feed Sepphoris is to be expected.

What part of irrelevant don't you understand?

[outhouse]

I find the question as to the existence of Nazareth to be beside the point when an examination of the gospels shows that Nazareth was not part of the earliest available Jesus traditions in those gospels.

Very credible point.

But having a dump like Nazareth not mentioned when building divinity to compete against the emperor, is to be expected.


There was a good spring there, there is NO reason Spin to think displaced peasants would not use that resource.

In a time where there were many displaced peasants due to the Hellenistic governement making peasant life difficult to feed Sepphoris and all the new inhabitants. 10,000 to 20,000 people living on that hill would have a impact on those who lived in the area. A good water source would have been used.

A agrarian work camp to feed Sepphoris is to be expected.

What part of irrelevant don't you understand?

What part of error, dont you understand.

Q isnt early enough for you, or do you have whacky views on that too?

[spin]

{quote="spin"}I find the question as to the existence of Nazareth to be beside the point when an examination of the gospels shows that Nazareth was not part of the earliest available Jesus traditions in those gospels.{/quote}

Very credible point.

But having a dump like Nazareth not mentioned when building divinity to compete against the emperor, is to be expected.


There was a good spring there, there is NO reason Spin to think displaced peasants would not use that resource.

In a time where there were many displaced peasants due to the Hellenistic governement making peasant life difficult to feed Sepphoris and all the new inhabitants. 10,000 to 20,000 people living on that hill would have a impact on those who lived in the area. A good water source would have been used.

A agrarian work camp to feed Sepphoris is to be expected.

What part of irrelevant don't you understand?

What part of error, dont you understand.

Q isnt early enough for you, or do you have whacky views on that too?

That is not a meaningful response. Q says nothing at all about Nazareth. But if you really, really want to, try to demonstrate Nazareth in Q. Go on. Thrill us with more nonsense.

[ficino]

I don't want to hear fucking "no reason to think" that there couldn't have been a Nazareth at point X on the fucking stratigraphic map. Have Bagatti's assertions been confirmed? Say something useful or don't participate on this thread.

[steve43]

2,000 was meant in the context of 2,000 years ago. My bad.

But logically, if a town exists TODAY that is known as Nazareth (or any "old" town) in Galilee, is it reasonable to assume that it appeared only a few centuries ago- popping up out of a pasture- built by the Romans perhaps- in an area that was unpopulated in Jesus' time? I don't think so. This is very ancient land and towns were established where they were for a reason- usually a spring.

Modern Israel puts up settlements willy-nilly but in the old days their had to be a practical reason for their location.

[outhouse]

Modern Israel puts up settlements willy-nilly but in the old days their had to be a practical reason for their location.

Do you think the rock cut channels going to the stepped walls for a little level growing area that dates to the first century, would be a good evidence?

The population of Sepphoris went nuts in the first century, do you think the agrarian peasants would have been used to feed all these people keeping peasant satellite villages with springs busy?

[ficino]

Outhouse, reference please. Are you referring to Pfann's dig? What's the proof that the rock cut places are first century? In this thread I was hoping to get beyond speculation and beyond claims from apologist websites (both pro- and con) and assemble some references to academic publications.

In addition to the witness of Josephus to the relatively heavy settlement of Galilee, to which reference has been made above, there is also the picture that is emerging from various archeological digs. See e.g. David Adan-Bayewitz and Isadore Perlman, “The local trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period,” Israel Exploration Journal 40 (1990) 153-72, and Kenneth R. Dark, “Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscapes between Sepphoris and Nazareth,” PEQ 140.2 (2008) 87-102.

Dark says betw 1st cent BCE and 7th CE there was dense settlement, lots of farms and small villages. A lot of places where rock is cut into but no funereal niches, look like places for olive presses or other agricultural uses (p. 92). Pottery of 2nd cent BCE to 3rd CE was associated with the built terraces excavated in 1996-7 at Nazareth Hospital (see Pfann et al. final report in Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archeological Society 25 [2007] 19-79). No suggestion of official presence or Roman villas, “perhaps suggesting opportunistic settlement of good-quality agricultural land by recently arrived Judaean farmers rather than their placement by urban authorities,” p. 98. Dark says the proximity of Sepphoris contributed to the density of settlement around it. At end of Byzantine period was destruction and reduced habitation, “largely emptied of settlement” in seventh century, to judge from archeology.

I haven't read Pfann's report yet.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I don't get why it's such a big deal to Jesus historicists. Surely it's obvious that Nazareth as Jesus' hometown was a mistake over confusion about what "Jesus the Nazorean" meant. Mark seems to imply that Capernaum was his home.

It seems so. But I think it must be another town in Mark 6:1. Capernaum fits not well here.

Let's forget for a moment the Nazareth-thing. Mark does not mention the town by her name, but he describes it as "πατρίδα" (patrida), the fatherstown. What is the best bet? I would put my money on Jerusalem.