Evidence for first-century Nazareth?

[ficino]

The Dark paper is just the sort of thing I was looking for, Kunigunde, thank you for the links. (I had seen the Pfann report.) I am in awe that you came up with these, actually! I don't know how I would have found the Dark paper, since a search of L'Annee Philologique didn't turn it up (prob. too recent).

As a non-archaeologist, I incline provisionally to accept that first century existence of Nazareth looks strong. I mentioned earlier Yardenna Alexandre's discovery of a camouflaged dug-out chamber that, she said, is like other ones used to hide from Romans during the first Revolt. I don't know of solid reason now to oppose a first century date, although I point out that Dark doesn't include an analysis of the few pottery shards and other pieces that he places in the first century. Salm not surprisingly says that the camouflaged pit could be from the second, Bar-Kochba revolt of the 130s, and he announces that in his new book, due this summer, he devotes a chapter to attacking Dark's conclusions:

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/11/ ... r-in-2014/


I'm still not yet convinced that the Caesarea inscription proves first-century existence of Nazareth, but the "pros" seem to be able to do without it. I haven't yet found the reason why Avi-Yonah and others, who accepted the inscription, thought that it recorded a resettlement of priests after the Bar-Kochba revolt and not in c. 70; Carrier disagrees with this and says only c. 70 is believable, since there was no temple cult after the temple's destruction. I'm hoping to get hold of Avi-Yonah's more detailed treatment of the inscription in a collection of essays edited by the notorious Vardaman.

[steve43]

The fact that several springs are in the area should close the book. The site of Nazareth was probably occupied by settlements going back six thousand years- similar to Jerusalem.

[ficino]

The fact that several springs are in the area should close the book. The site of Nazareth was probably occupied by settlements going back six thousand years- similar to Jerusalem.

Are there "several" year-round springs? According to Jacob Walker in Kunigunde's link, there is only one. Various things I've read - Pfann's study, I think, was one - say that this or that site in the area was unoccupied during certain ranges of time. The evidence for relatively high rates of settlement in the first century, though, is certainly on the "yes" side of the balance, and I agree that one year-round spring counts as a plus as well.

[outhouse]

The fact that several springs are in the area should close the book. The site of Nazareth was probably occupied by settlements going back six thousand years- similar to Jerusalem.

Are there "several" year-round springs? According to Jacob Walker in Kunigunde's link, there is only one. Various things I've read - Pfann's study, I think, was one - say that this or that site in the area was unoccupied during certain ranges of time. The evidence for relatively high rates of settlement in the first century, though, is certainly on the "yes" side of the balance, and I agree that one year-round spring counts as a plus as well.

Correct, just the one spring that I know of.

Think about 10,000 -20,000 people moving into Sepphoris 4 miles away, and what effect that may have to that general area.

Work camps
Agrarian camps

[andrewcriddle]

We also have the general issue of whether there was or to what extent there was a first century Nazareth in Galilee. There are early Patristic references that place this Nazareth in Judea.

Do you remember what they are, offhand? I took a quick poke around and only found two references of that sort: one by Julius Africanus attesting to a town called Nazara in Judea during the time of king Herod, and a reference to Nazareth as a city in Judah in Acts of Peter and Paul.

Maurice Casey claims plausibly that the passage from Julius Africanus should be translated Jewish villages not villages of Judea

See Casey

Andrew Criddle

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Soooo.....case closed?

Yes

Mark 1:9 Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ
Mark 1:24 Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ
Mark 10:47 Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός
Mark 14:67 τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ ἦσθα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ
Mark 16:6 Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμέ

I have no idea what that means. But at first glance it seems a little bit like a Crescendo, a revelation in five steps. I fantasize only: first maybe a place on earth (before baptism?), finally a title (after resurrection?), between them maybe a description gradually changed to a proper name

But let's forget it and translate all with “Jesus of Nazareth”

[stephan happy huller]

Very similar forms seem to be found in Mandaeanism - i.e. Nazoraiia for their priests and Nazirutha which seem to be the original descriptive noun. Notice how it resembles the basic shape of 'nazareth' and 'nazir.' While many dispute that there was a single Nazarene tradition (i.e. the Christian sect mentioned by Epiphanius and the modern Mandaeans who identify their priests as Nazoraiia) Epiphanius's understanding is that community was pre-Christian and resembled an archaic Israelite religion.

I think it is plausible that a community of 'Nazorenes' (however that was originally spelled) existed and was closely associated with early Christianity. Don't know how to develop that argument beyond mere speculation. But it would help explain the origin of a counter claim that Jesus 'wasn't one of them' (or his community was separate) and instead Nazirutha should be read as a reference to a little village that someone found on a map (i.e. Jesus's hometown). I don't think disproving the existence of Nazareth is key to demolishing the claim that Jesus was from there. As always mythicists do things the stupid way and end up strengthening the other side by their blunders.

[stephan happy huller]

This statement from the Wikipedia article on Nazareth is interesting:

Another theory holds that the Greek form Nazara, used in Matthew and Luke, may derive from an earlier Aramaic form of the name, or from another Semitic language form.[14] If there were a tsade (צ) in the original Semitic form, as in the later Hebrew forms, it would normally have been transcribed in Greek with a sigma instead of a zeta.[8] This has led some scholars to question whether "Nazareth" and its cognates in the New Testament actually refer to the settlement we know traditionally as Nazareth in Lower Galilee

[Tenorikuma]

Thanks, Stephen. I'll have to look those references up.

[spin]

Very similar forms seem to be found in Mandaeanism - i.e. Nazoraiia for their priests and Nazirutha which seem to be the original descriptive noun. Notice how it resembles the basic shape of 'nazareth' and 'nazir.'

H. Schaeder ("Ναζαρηνος and Ναζωραιος for Kittel's Dictionary" in Kittel, G, "Nazarenos, Nazoraios", Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, pp. 875 ff.) made that connection untenable.