Matthew 2:23

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:23 am

John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:09 am
The atheists/mythicists have long maintain that the town of Nazerite is a myth. Therefore Jesus is a myth. However, common sense and history does not support the atheists and myth makers.
No, Nazareth not existing before the end of the 1st century or so would just be another missing foundation stone.

John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:09 am
It is said that although Nazareth was a small town, it was well known by travellers in the region for it was located at the crossroads of a major caravan trade route. Because of that, the Roman garrison in charge of Galilee was housed there.
Nazareth is in a basin high on a hill/mountain range, the Nazareth Range. It's 320m above sea level and the ridge is as high as 450m.

John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:09 am
If Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus then why didn't the Romans and/or early anti-Christian historians point that out? :scratch:
Point out what? that it didn't exist? To whom would they have pointed that out? Why?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:34 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:35 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:07 am
There are also references to linguistic discrepancies due "a peculiarity of the 'Palestinian' Aramaic dialect wherein a sade (ṣ) (tsade) between two voiced (sonant) consonants tended to be partially assimilated by taking on a zayin (z) sound" -
  • Carruth, S; Robinson, J McC; Heil, C. (1996) Q 4:1–13,16: the temptations of Jesus : Nazara. Peeters Publishers. p 415.
Yes, that is what I was responding to.
That is said to explain "linguistic discrepancies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Hebrew_Netzer

eta: And -
Many scholars have questioned a link between "Nazareth" and the terms "Nazarene" and "Nazoraean" on linguistic grounds,[23] while some affirm the possibility of etymological relation "given the idiosyncrasies of Galilean Aramaic."[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth# ... references

23. Cheyne in 1899 Ency. Biblica, "Nazareth"; Lidzbarski [Kittel p. 878]; Kennard [JBL 65:2,134 ff.]; Berger [Novum Test. 38:4,323], et multi.
24. S. Chepey, "Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism" (2005), p 152, referring to W. Albright, G. Moore, and H. Schaeder.

eta2: From René Salm -
... the word for branch at Isa 11:1 is not NZR but NTsR (nun-tsade-resh, BDB 666). On the other hand, NZR (non-zain-resh) means “consecration, crown, Naziriteship” (BDB 634). They are two completely different roots ...

As it happens, the difference between “z” and “ts” plays an important role in relation to Nazareth and its cognates. Even introductory encyclopedia entries on the town raise the remarkable fact, long known and discussed, that the Greek name for the settlement does not linguistically conform to the Semitic name. (See Schaeder’s article, Nazarénos in Kittel, p. 875.) The Greek has the zeta—a voiced sibilant. But the Semitic has the tsade (Nun-tsade-resh)—an unvoiced sibilant. In other words, the Greek name in the Gospels—though arguably related to NaZiR (“nazirite”)—is certainly not linguistically related to “NTsR” (“branch,” also “watch, guard, keep”). It’s application to Nazareth and to Jesus as a “Nazarene” was clearly artificial. This is an important observation regarding the activity of the evangelists. “Nazarene” represents an artificial transliteration change made at a very early stage (the Gospel of Mark) in the Greek gospel tradition. The change was either deliberate (for theological reasons) or was an error. I favor the former possibility: using the “z” effectively directed the attention away from the Semitic natsuraia (root: NTsR) which had offensive gnostic meanings that must be revisited by scholarship. In Mandaic, the natsuraia is the “guardian of mysteries,” the one “skilled in esoteric knowledge,” and the follower of John the Baptist (Drower & Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary, p. 285).

In a nutshell, the Hellenist Christians transformed Jesus the Gnostic into Jesus the Nazarene (blandly defined as “the holy one of God”—Mk 1:24). The evangelist Matthew went a step further than Mark and applied the Greek term (with the “z”) to an invented town he called “Nazareth.” It was only much later —probably at the time of Empress Helena in the early fourth century— that Christians designated a village in Lower Galilee as “Nazareth.” Archeology shows, however, that the village came into existence about 100 CE.

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/11/ ... heology-2/
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:40 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John T » Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:25 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:23 am
John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:09 am
The atheists/mythicists have long maintain that the town of Nazerite is a myth. Therefore Jesus is a myth. However, common sense and history does not support the atheists and myth makers.
No, Nazareth not existing before the end of the 1st century or so would just be another missing foundation stone.

John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:09 am
It is said that although Nazareth was a small town, it was well known by travellers in the region for it was located at the crossroads of a major caravan trade route. Because of that, the Roman garrison in charge of Galilee was housed there.
Nazareth is in a basin high on a hill/mountain range, the Nazareth Range. It's 320m above sea level and the ridge is as high as 450m.

John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:09 am
If Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus then why didn't the Romans and/or early anti-Christian historians point that out? :scratch:
Point out what? that it didn't exist? To whom would they have pointed that out? Why?
Ken Dark of the Nazareth Archaeological Project has excavated in the Nazareth area and found homes dating to the period of Jesus or earlier. Some even speculate he may have even unearthed the very house of Jesus. That, "The house must date from the first century A.D. or earlier. No stratified pottery earlier or later than the Early Roman period was discovered in layers associated with the house."...Ken Dark

Biblical Archaeology Review 41:2, March/April 2015
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John T » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:33 pm

Here is web-site by Kenneth Humphreys that tries to explain away the town of Nazareth in order to claim that Jesus never existed.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Question for the mythicists: Did Josephus claim to have listed every small town around Galilee that was destroyed during the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D.?

Using the logic (if you can call it that) of Kenneth Humphreys, all those small towns that were destroyed during the revolt but not listed by Josephus never existed in the first place.

The fallacy of absence of evidence is evidence of absence is the crux of Humphreys' argument.

Not surprisinly, the best evidence for the town of Nazareth is absent from Humphreys' report. :facepalm:

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:30 pm

John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:25 pm

Ken Dark of the Nazareth Archaeological Project has excavated in the Nazareth area and found homes dating to the period of Jesus or earlier ... That, "The house must date from the first century A.D. or earlier. No stratified pottery earlier or later than the Early Roman period was discovered in layers associated with the house."...Ken Dark

Biblical Archaeology Review 41:2, March/April 2015
I can't get access to the article, but there's this

... the Israel Antiquities Authority recently undertook a small scale archaeological excavation close to the church [of the Annunciation, which resulted in the exposure of the structure.

According to Yardenna Alexandre, excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are*, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village*, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period”.

In the excavation a large broad wall that dates to the Mamluk period (the fifteenth century CE) was exposed that was constructed on top of and “utilized” the walls of an ancient building. This earlier building consisted of two rooms and a courtyard in which there was a rock-hewn cistern into which the rainwater was conveyed. The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE). In addition, several fragments of chalk vessels were found, which were only used by Jews in this period because such vessels were not susceptible to becoming ritually unclean.

Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it ... http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_e ... ule_id=#as
* it would be interesting to know what those written sources are

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:39 pm

John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:25 pm

Ken Dark of the Nazareth Archaeological Project has excavated in the Nazareth area and found homes dating to the period of Jesus or earlier ... That, "The house must date from the first century A.D. or earlier. No stratified pottery earlier or later than the Early Roman period was discovered in layers associated with the house."...Ken Dark

Biblical Archaeology Review 41:2, March/April 2015
Note that even Rene Salm admits that "Archeology shows, however, that the village came into existence about 100 CE."

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John T » Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:15 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:39 pm
John T wrote:
Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:25 pm

Ken Dark of the Nazareth Archaeological Project has excavated in the Nazareth area and found homes dating to the period of Jesus or earlier ... That, "The house must date from the first century A.D. or earlier. No stratified pottery earlier or later than the Early Roman period was discovered in layers associated with the house."...Ken Dark

Biblical Archaeology Review 41:2, March/April 2015
Note that even Rene Salm admits that "Archeology shows, however, that the village came into existence about 100 CE."

"As is well known, I also am not trained in archeology."...Rene' Salem

Reme' Salm may not be a trained archeologist but he did stay at the Holiday Express once. :lol:

Rene' Salm is a typical mythicist that believes what he wants to believe and no archeological evidence can convince him otherwise. :facepalm:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:38 am

John T wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:15 am
.. no archaeological evidence can convince him otherwise.
There is no definitive archaeological evidence there was even a village at Nazareth in the 1st c. (though it will now be hard to do many archaeological digs to find evidence b/c there's now a substantial town there; 40k I think).

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John T » Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:24 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:38 am
John T wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:15 am
.. no archaeological evidence can convince him otherwise.
There is no definitive archaeological evidence there was even a village at Nazareth in the 1st c. (though it will now be hard to do many archaeological digs to find evidence b/c there's now a substantial town there; 40k I think).
"The excavation site located beneath the convent has been known since 1880, but it was never professionally excavated until the Nazareth Archaeological Project began its work in 2006."...BAR 12/01/2017

So, the mythicist argument that Nazareth did not exist due to lack of archaeological evidence was only true in that, no such archaeological digs had occurred before 2006.

Now that professional archaeologic digs are underway and discovery of buildings from the time of Jesus have been found, the new argument by the mythicists will likely be; since no engravings/etchings have (yet) been found carved in to the Nazareth homes that explicitly says "Jesus slept here", that is proof that Jesus did not exist.

Again, a mythicist is not going to believe anything that does not support their myth no matter what. They will always find an excuse no matter how ridiculous or lame.

With that being said, I am done with this thread unless the mythcists can provide actual evidence that disproves the recent findings of the professional archaeologists at Nazareth.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

John2
Posts: 2361
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew 2:23

Post by John2 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:32 am

... since no engravings/etchings have (yet) been found carved in to the Nazareth homes that explicitly says "Jesus slept here", that is proof that Jesus did not exist.
Jesus replied, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
:)
Tell me all that you know and I'll show you snow and rain.

Post Reply