gmx wrote:Simplest solution seems to be that Nazareth was a very small town (given the archaeological findings), not noteworthy enough to have been mentioned in prominent writings previously, and the actual hometown of Jesus. None of the other theories mentioned seemed to be more plausible than this.
I didn’t think there are any archaeological findings for a first century CE Nazareth being inhabited, let alone as being a town. As I understand it there is some evidence, but not a lot that Chorazin existed as a village in the first century CE.
Alexandre adds that "based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 AD"
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
gmx wrote:Simplest solution seems to be that Nazareth was a very small town (given the archaeological findings), not noteworthy enough to have been mentioned in prominent writings previously, and the actual hometown of Jesus. None of the other theories mentioned seemed to be more plausible than this.
I didn’t think there are any archaeological findings for a first century CE Nazareth being inhabited, let alone as being a town. As I understand it there is some evidence, but not a lot that Chorazin existed as a village in the first century CE.
Alexandre adds that "based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 AD"
Well, at least this shows that *one* two room structure with a courtyard was present in the first century or so CE, although we are not quite to the point of being able to call it a "village" or "town". It may well be a "Jewish" inhabitation.
What is to prevent it, though, from being a tenant farmer's home on some private gift estate of one of the elite class? A good portion of the arable land in the levant, at least the better portions of it, had long ago been seized by conquerors and added to "royal" estates, which were in turn gifted to retainers from the elite classes. It could be under the administration of whatever government was in charge in the first 2 centuries, which I believe was Roman for most of this period. There were also numerous "Greek" cities with "chora" that was let to tenant farmers (peasants) of whatever nationality was available at any particular time.
I'm kind of inclined to think that modern day Nazareth is not the site of any ancient village called Nazareth mentioned in the Judean scriptures. That village may no longer have even existed in 1st-2nd centuries CE, but a regional designation turned into a village by the imagination of the early Christians seeking an identity. A lot of early Christian history seems to be "reconstructed" from such desiderata picked from the Judean scriptures.
Well, at least this shows that *one* two room structure with a courtyard was present in the first century or so CE, although we are not quite to the point of being able to call it a "village" or "town". It may well be a "Jewish" inhabitation.
What is to prevent it, though, from being a tenant farmer's home on some private gift estate of one of the elite class
Nothing prevents it, as far as I know. As I understand it, a dwelling was found, some kokh tombs, a tunnel, and some 1st CE (and later) Roman coins.
The "settlement" was excavated, however, on a site that has been revered as the home of Mary "for a very long time".
What any of that means is anyone's guess. I still go to the simplicity playbook, and say, that if there is reason to believe that Nazareth, Galiliee existed in Jesus' time and space, then Jesus came from Nazareth, Galilee.
However, I am illiterate with respect to biblical (or any other form of) Greek, and I am consequently lost with the distinction between Nazara and Nazareth (or Nazarites, Nazaroens and Nazirs for that matter).
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
DCHindley wrote:What is to prevent it, though, from being a tenant farmer's home on some private gift estate of one of the elite class
Nothing prevents it, as far as I know. As I understand it, a dwelling was found, some kokh tombs, a tunnel, and some 1st CE (and later) Roman coins.
I believe there was also some pottery and chalk vessels.
The "settlement" was excavated, however, on a site that has been revered as the home of Mary "for a very long time". What any of that means is anyone's guess.
I still go to the simplicity playbook, and say, that if there is reason to believe that Nazareth, Galiliee existed in Jesus' time and space, then Jesus came from Nazareth, Galilee.
However, I am illiterate with respect to biblical (or any other form of) Greek, and I am consequently lost with the distinction between Nazara and Nazareth (or Nazarites, Nazaroens and Nazirs for that matter).
A couple years ago I had researched the whole idea of a "Nazorean" district in the Hauran/Trachonitis region, and found more than I expected to support of the concept that the term is geographic and not the name of a village. Unfortunately, it was lingering on my computer as a draft for some days. Then I saw it open one day and thought for a moment about saving it with a name, but then I reasoned "Why would I want to save this again?" and hit delete, because at the time the discussion had turned caustic.
DCHindley wrote:
Well, at least this shows that *one* two room structure with a courtyard was present in the first century or so CE, although we are not quite to the point of being able to call it a "village" or "town". It may well be a "Jewish" inhabitation.
What is to prevent it, though, from being a tenant farmer's home on some private gift estate of one of the elite class? A good portion of the arable land in the levant, at least the better portions of it, had long ago been seized by conquerors and added to "royal" estates, which were in turn gifted to retainers from the elite classes. It could be under the administration of whatever government was in charge in the first 2 centuries, which I believe was Roman for most of this period. There were also numerous "Greek" cities with "chora" that was let to tenant farmers (peasants) of whatever nationality was available at any particular time.
I'm kind of inclined to think that modern day Nazareth is not the site of any ancient village called Nazareth mentioned in the Judean scriptures. That village may no longer have even existed in 1st-2nd centuries CE, but a regional designation turned into a village by the imagination of the early Christians seeking an identity. A lot of early Christian history seems to be "reconstructed" from such desiderata picked from the Judean scriptures.
DCH
I would add that a population increase during the rebuilding and feeding of Sepphoris before the fall of the temple, is 100% plausible to the point of certainty.
That is of course based on all evidence, textual and archeological.
I do agree the literary evidence was exaggerated and far removed from any actual knowledge. But there would have been a small village there before the temple fell.
Peter Kirby wrote:
Isn't one of the facts of the case regarding 'Nazareth' the fact that it is not mentioned in 'Judean scriptures' (or Josephus)?
No mention of Nazareth in Josephus's autobiography - The Life of Josephus - which Josephus wrote near the end of his life (~100 AD/CE), and which includes a lot about Galilee and places therein -
Isn't one of the facts of the case regarding 'Nazareth' the fact that it is not mentioned in 'Judean scriptures' (or Josephus)?
Nazareth is not named among the Galilean towns in either the Talmund (63 of them) or Josephus' works (45 of them). But in Josephus' Life 45, it is reported "there are two hundred and forty cities and villages in Galilee".
My other remarks on Nazareth are here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1.html then search on 1.1.7
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
DCH wrote:I'm kind of inclined to think that modern day Nazareth is not the site of any ancient village called Nazareth mentioned in the Judean scriptures. That village may no longer have even existed in 1st-2nd centuries CE, but a regional designation turned into a village by the imagination of the early Christians seeking an identity. A lot of early Christian history seems to be "reconstructed" from such desiderata picked from the Judean scriptures.
^ This is the context.
Peter Kirby wrote:DCH:
Isn't one of the facts of the case regarding 'Nazareth' the fact that it is not mentioned in 'Judean scriptures' (or Josephus)?
There may be stuff about a 'branch' or something else spelled similarly but no 'Nazareth'.
(NB - I am not saying that this fact demands any particular conclusion. I'm just saying...)
This is my unambiguous reply... for DCH.
I anticipated this kind of riffing on my post (see "NB" above)...
MrMacSon wrote:No mention of Nazareth in Josephus's autobiography - The Life of Josephus - which Josephus wrote near the end of his life (~100 AD/CE), and which includes a lot about Galilee and places therein -
Bernard Mulller wrote:Nazareth is not named among the Galilean towns in either the Talmund (63 of them) or Josephus' works (45 of them). But in Josephus' Life 45, it is reported "there are two hundred and forty cities and villages in Galilee".
My other remarks on Nazareth are here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1.html then search on 1.1.7
But, please, refer to the context...
Or maybe say that you're quoting my post but not replying to what my post is actually saying. Just sort of using it or whatever.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
