Nazareth

[Diane]

Falasha,
On your thought that “there is evidence that Jesus was not from Nazareth.”

Please consider what those who knew him said about where he came from.
Matthew’s account says that when Joseph took Mary and Jesus back to Israel from Egypt that they lived in Nazareth. Matthew 2:19-23
He says after Jesus left Nazareth, he lived in Capernaum. (Matthew 4:13)
He says when Jesus rode the donkey into Jerusalem the crowds were yelling this is Jesus the prophet from Nazareth. Matthew 21:11
After Jesus was arrested a servant girl said of Peter, “This man was with Jesus the Nazarene.” (Matthew 26:71)
Mark says Jesus came from Nazareth to be baptized by John. Mark 1:9
Luke says the angel Gabriel came to Mary at Nazareth to tell her she would have God’s son. Luke 1:26
And says that Joseph and Mary left Nazareth to go to Bethlehem.  Luke 2:4
They were still living in Nazareth when Jesus was 12. Luke 2:51
He also says Jesus grew up in Nazareth and that it was there that he read from the scroll of Isaiah. Luke 4:16
When a blind man asked why there was a crowd, the people said it was because Jesus the Nazarene was passing by. Luke 18:37
His disciples referred to him as Jesus the Nazarene. Luke 24:17
As did the priests and Pharisees. John 18:5-6
John said when Philip found Nathaael he told him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." And that when Nathanael heard that Jesus was from Nazareth he said: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45-46) That Nazareth was looked down on, even by people of Galilee, is indicated by the comment of Nathanael.
The sign that Pilate had written on his cross was "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." John 19:19
When Peter spoke to the crowds at Pentecost he told them Jesus was from Nazareth. Acts 10:38
When Tertullus was accusing Paul before the Roman procurator Felix he said he was, “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:5)
Paul said he used to do all he could to oppose “the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Acts 26:9
These statements by the men who knew Jesus and his family are trustworthy evidence.

[falasha]

I don't believe there are any accounts of the life of Jesus written during his lifetime.

There are many scholars that believe the NZR root of Nazareth was misinterpreted. I will give you links. Nun - Zayin - Resh is also root of "shoot" or "branch" meaning from the root of Jesse.
Nazareth and The Branch: Matthew 2:23 and Interpretation of the Old
Testament
Did the OT prophecy Jesus coming from Nazareth?
Original Torah:  Ancient Words in a Modern Light » Uncategorized

But also the archaeological evidence shows that Nazareth was not a 'city' and was located in a valley. If it existed at all in the first century it was hardly worth mentioning. Josephus does not mention it when he delineates all the villages in the Galilee region.  Also, there was no synogogue in first century Nazareth.

[Diane]

You are correct in that none of the accounts of Jesus life were written during his lifetime.
But about there being no synagogue in Nazareth please accept what the people who lived then wrote.
"Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue.” Matthew 13:54
What is his hometown?
“He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read.” Luke 4:16
He didn't go alone.
Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue.” Mark 6:1-2

[falasha]

Yes but we are talking about archaeology.

The archaeology says there is not a first century synogogue. Also, the few dwellings that were located in this region (no proof these dwellings were called Nazareth) were in the valley. The hill in the immediate region was where the dead were buried. Judaic law prohibits people living among the dead.

Thanks

[Admin1]

There may be something here that we can all agree with.  Scholars agree that common in use of the Koine (Greek of the era) is variant spellings and abbreviations.

I'm an admitted anti-minimalist who believes the NT is Scripture inspired by God, but do recognize too that it cannot all be taken literally...and that there are what we would call "errors", historically speaking, but that theologically speaking there are no errors.

Does that make sense?

Bottom line: If the circumstantial evidence that Jesus was not from Nazareth were overwhelming (At this point, I do not believe that it is overwhelming), then I'd be ok that, and eager to learn more.

 

[Diane]

To Rick,
Please see the first post on this topic which has a list of many scriptures written by several men and quoting several others who all say that Jesus was from Nazareth.

[Admin1]

I saw them

[Brianroy]

One writer says:
The archaeology says there is not a first century synogogue. Also, the few dwellings that were located in this region (no proof these dwellings were called Nazareth) were in the valley.   

That kind of approach, I disagree with.  If you bury a safe with a million dollars in it on a lot somewhere, simply because the police don't find it on top of the lot where the safe and its contents are buried, the police have then  just proven the money wasn't there?   

In my redating the NT thread, I have explained an example where the Bethlehem of Justin Martyr's day was closer to Jerusalem than the Bethlehem we have currently, and have also identified where archaeologists should generally dig.  That is, in the fields north-northeast of current Bethlehem, in order to find the Old Bethlehem of 2000 years ago per Justin Martyr's Apology 1.34 reference.

Josephus tells us in his wars of the Jews, that by his day, not one of the couple hundred villages in Galilee (hence, including Nazareth by implication),  not one had a population less than 15,000 by that time.

Archaeology has yet to disproven that simple 'population of Galilee' utterance of Josephus, because we haven't uncovered all of Galilee, or enough of it that dates exclusively to the period in question to say this or that village could not have held a population over such and such during the relative period in question prior to the First Jewish War of 66-70 A.D., have we?

If archaeology has not uncovered the entire region of Galilee of at least 12-18 feet of its current soil, and THEN found nothing...archaeology has PROVEN no counter-thesis to the existence of Nazareth.

 We are therefore left with the literary historical texts...the same texts, mind you, that have yet to be disproven...the same texts which has guided archaeology to location after location and been vindicated for what is now hundreds of years.  The same kinds of texts most aptly introduced by Diane.
(Good job, Di).

So in regard to Nazareth, it would help if we had a dig in the right place...but unlike Bethlehem's correct distance being explained to us, we (that is, in general terms "we") are uncertain as where to dig for Nazareth as yet.  It's there...just money, permissions, and resources are tight.

As for Bethlehem, because of West bank boundaries (etc.), it now involves Arab politics as well as the IAA and all the rest of it.  But someday, those fields will be uncovered, and we will have our verification of the Bethlehem Jesus knew, because it is a site that can be known and within the grasp of proper bureaucratic red tape (i.e., impitable poppycock) being sifted and snipped through over the next 15-25 years, and eventually dug up.  Or so we hope.

Peace.

[falasha]

One writer says:
The archaeology says there is not a first century synogogue. Also, the few dwellings that were located in this region (no proof these dwellings were called Nazareth) were in the valley.   

That kind of approach, I disagree with.  If you bury a safe with a million dollars in it on a lot somewhere, simply because the police don't find it on top of the lot where the safe and its contents are buried, the police have then  just proven the money wasn't there?   

In my redating the NT thread, I have explained an example where the Bethlehem of Justin Martyr's day was closer to Jerusalem than the Bethlehem we have currently, and have also identified where archaeologists should generally dig.  That is, in the fields north-northeast of current Bethlehem, in order to find the Old Bethlehem of 2000 years ago per Justin Martyr's Apology 1.34 reference.

Josephus tells us in his wars of the Jews, that by his day, not one of the couple hundred villages in Galilee (hence, including Nazareth by implication),  not one had a population less than 15,000 by that time.

Archaeology has yet to disproven that simple 'population of Galilee' utterance of Josephus, because we haven't uncovered all of Galilee, or enough of it that dates exclusively to the period in question to say this or that village could not have held a population over such and such during the relative period in question prior to the First Jewish War of 66-70 A.D., have we?

If archaeology has not uncovered the entire region of Galilee of at least 12-18 feet of its current soil, and THEN found nothing...archaeology has PROVEN no counter-thesis to the existence of Nazareth.

 We are therefore left with the literary historical texts...the same texts, mind you, that have yet to be disproven...the same texts which has guided archaeology to location after location and been vindicated for what is now hundreds of years.  The same kinds of texts most aptly introduced by Diane.
(Good job, Di).

So in regard to Nazareth, it would help if we had a dig in the right place...but unlike Bethlehem's correct distance being explained to us, we (that is, in general terms "we") are uncertain as where to dig for Nazareth as yet.  It's there...just money, permissions, and resources are tight.

As for Bethlehem, because of West bank boundaries (etc.), it now involves Arab politics as well as the IAA and all the rest of it.  But someday, those fields will be uncovered, and we will have our verification of the Bethlehem Jesus knew, because it is a site that can be known and within the grasp of proper bureaucratic red tape (i.e., impitable poppycock) being sifted and snipped through over the next 15-25 years, and eventually dug up.  Or so we hope.

Peace.

I would disagree with your safe analogy. The evidence of Nazareth being a major city with a synogogue should be held to same level of corroborating evidence as any other site, biblical or not. I would also disagree with you on your contention that the site of first century Nazareth is not known. If the science used to determine the site of first century Nazareth is in question, then so would be all other sites scientists have spent their lives digging up because the science used to determine this is the same.

Josephus does give population estimates of cities of the Galilee and you say this includes Nazareth by implication. I disagree with your assertion because we do not know for sure what Josephus meant by "Galilee". It is easy to pinpoint his northern border of Tirat Carmel but the southern boundary of "Ptlomais" is ambiguous. If Nazareth was a known major city in the first century I would agree with your by implication statement. But it was not. What I do know is that Nazareth does not have the same topology as the rest of the Galilee. First century Nazareth was located in a fertile valley with a farming economy. The Galilee region is mountainous and known for their nut and fruit trees and, of course, the fishermen of the lake itself.

As for the Bethlehem, that is another topic.

Thanks

[Brianroy]

Falasha,
   No offense, but Josephus offers more information about Galilee than you are apparently aware of up to this point in time.

Click on this link from York University and see for yourself these same quotes below.

PACE


"NOW Phoenicia and Syria encompass about the Galilees, which are two, and called the Upper Galilee and the Lower. They are bounded toward the sun-setting, with the borders of the territory belonging to Ptolemais , and by Carmel; which mountain had formerly belonged to the Galileans, but now belonged to the Tyrians; to which mountain adjoins Gaba , which is called the City of Horsemen , because those horsemen that were dismissed by Herod the king dwelt therein; they are bounded on the south with Samaria and Scythopolis , as far as the river Jordan ; on the east with Hippeae and Gadaris, and also with Ganlonitis, and the borders of the kingdom of Agrippa; its northern parts are bounded by Tyre , and the country of the Tyrians.

As for that Galilee which is called the Lower, it, extends... beginning also is taken the breadth of the Upper Galilee , as far as the village Baca , which divides the land of the Tyrians from it; its length is also from Meloth to Thella , a village near to Jordan .

...Saab, in Galilee....

In short, if any one will suppose that Galilee is inferior to Perea in magnitude, he will be obliged to prefer it before it in its strength; for this is all capable of cultivation, and is every where fruitful; but for Perea , which is indeed much larger in extent, the greater part of it is desert and rough, and much less disposed for the production of the milder kinds of fruits; yet hath it a moist soil [in other parts], and produces all kinds of fruits, and its plains are planted with trees of all sorts, while yet the olive tree, the vine, and the palm tree are chiefly cultivated there. It is also sufficiently watered with torrents, which issue out of the mountains, and with springs that never fail to run, even when the torrents fail them, as they do in the dog-days. Now the length of Perea is from Macherus to Pella , and its breadth from Philadelphia to Jordan ; its northern parts are bounded by Pella , as we have already said, as well as its Western with Jordan ; the land of Moab.... "  (War of the Jews, Book 3)




"...the upper Galilee up till Mt. Liban and the sources of the Jordan..." (Antiq. Book 5)

"... all Galilee as far as Sidon ..." (Antiquities Book


"...Garsis, a city of Galilee....(Wars of the Jews, Book 5)



"At that time, I was living in a village of Galilee that is known as Cana .

In the Lower Galilee I secured the cities Tarichea , Tiberias , and Sepphoris , and these villages: the Cave of Arbela , Bersoubai , Selame, Iotapata , Capharath, Komos, Soganae, Iapha, and Mount Itabyrion. In these places I also stored plenty of grain and weapons for security in the sequel.

...the principal men of the Tiberians, had withdrawn from Bethmaus into upper Galilee....

...Dabaritta ?a village lying at the limits of Galilee , in the Great Plain ?....

...Simonias , a village lying on the frontier of Galilee....

...Iapha, being the largest village of those in Galilee . It had very strong walls and was completely full of inhabitants....
 
If you want me to come to you at all costs, there are 204 cities and villages throughout the Galilee . I will come to any of these you desire, except Gabara and Gischala...   

 ...Of the cities in Galilee , the greatest are Sepphoris and Tiberias , which is your native place, Iustus. But Sepphoris , for its part, though lying in the center-most region of Galilee and having around it numerous villages "  (Life of Josephus, Book 1)


"...that mountain which lies in the very middle of Galilee , and is situated over against Sepphoris ; it is called Asamon." (Judean War, Book 2)

"...Jotapata, and Bersabee, and Selamis; and besides these, about Caphareccho , and Japha , and Sigo, and what they call Mount Tabor , and Tarichee, and Tiberias . Moreover, he built walls about the caves near the lake of Gennesar, which places lay in the Lower Galilee ; the same he did to the places of Upper Galilee , as well as to the rock called the Rock of the Achabari, and to Seph , and Jamnith , and Meroth ; and in Gaulonitis he fortified Seleucia , and Sogane, and Gamala....

...Zabulon, a strong city of Galilee ....

...This Ptolemais is a maritime city of Galilee , built in the great plain. It is encompassed with mountains: that on the east side, sixty furlongs off, belongs to Galilee ; but that on the south belongs to Carmel, which is distant from it a hundred and twenty furlongs; and that on the north is the highest of them all, and is called by the people of the country, The Ladder of the Tyrians, which is at the distance of a hundred furlongs. The very small river Belus runs by it, at the distance of two furlongs; near which there is Menmon's monument, and hath near it a place no larger than a hundred cubits, which deserves admiration; for the place is round and hollow, and affords such sand as glass is made of...."(Wars of the Jews, Book 2)


You will note that Sepphoris is said to be in the direct center of Lower Galilee, and we are given a good estimate of its borders.  We are also told Upper Galilee extends to the boundary of Tyre, or what is now Lebannon is really that area which should belong to Israel today, even though it currently does not. 

You state that " First century Nazareth was located in a fertile valley with a farming economy.", when Luke chapter 4 speaks of Nazareth being on a cliffside...


"16  And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
 
29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."

...then I find your "down in the basin of the valley" understanding of what and where Nazareth was located in the Galilee (no offense intended) as misinformed. 

Based on your wording, fruit tree farms can also be on hillsides, too, you know.  Perhaps, that was the presumption that led you astray?

At anyrate...I hope you will not take offense in the data, and be able to receive.

Peace.

[falasha]

The Josephus reference proves Nazareth was not a first century city because it was not included in Josephus' census. The archaeology tells us first century nazareth was maybe a dozen families. The reason I point this out is that you run the risk of not fully understanding the humiliation of Jesus when He is dubbed "Jesus of Nazareth" "King of Jews". This is not merely to inform onlookers of His status and origin. This is to too further erode His personhood. How could a king be from such a lowly hometown?

Nazareth is located in a valley below limestone cliffs where the dead have been buried for centuries. The cliffs expose the uplift of the higher elevation of the European plate. Essentially, this is where Europe meets Africa. The Galilee is in Europe and Nazareth is in Africa. The economy of the Galilee was fishing and farming - mostly fishing. The economy of Nazareth was goat herding and grains - mostly herding.

I have included a site that tells about the topology of the region.
Misliya Cave Project



 

[serapha]

Hello Falasha...

 

Here are some interesting tidbits for you  from my notes.... These concern the evidences for the relatives of Jesus living in the area of Nazareth, and with living relatives, many became leaders in the church and surprise... they didn't contradict the gospels that were written.   



Jack Finegan's research indicates that relatives of Jesus were still alive and living in Israel, he believes at Nazareth. The fact that relatives of Jesus were still living in the area becomes significant because they could verify the birthplace of Jesus, the family living in Nazareth, and the circumstances of the death and resurrection of Christ.

But what happened to the descendents of the family of Jesus?

An excerpt from the text,

“With respect to the possible resemblance of any particular location in Nazareth associated with the life of Jesus, it is possible to recall that, according to positive evidences, members of the family of Jesus were still living in Palestine, some of them perhaps in Nazareth, until the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, and further descendants were probably there much longer than that.”

Eusebius, an early church father quotes from the writings of Hegisippus concerning the relatives of Jesus.  He writes, “Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.”

Hegesippus is also quoted by Eusebius in Book IV, Chapter 22, “Symeon was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as the cousin of our Lord.”

In his history, Eusebius writes, “The same author [Heggesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: ‘And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, ...was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.’”






Julius Africanus records in his history, Chapter V, “A few, however, of the studious [Jews], having private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting at them in some other way from the archives, pride themselves in preserving the memory of their noble descent; and among these happen to be those already mentioned, called desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. And these coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages, to other parts of the country, set forth the above-named genealogyas accurately as possible from the Book of Days.”

Nazareth is rich with inscriptions.  One inscription refers to Conon which, according to the written record was a descendent of the family of Jesus.  "I belong to the city of Nazareth in Galilee, and am a relative of Christ whom I serve, as my forefathers have done.” (Kopp: 90)

Finegan, Jack, The Archaeology of the New Testament, Princeton University Press, 1992.
Kopp, Clemens, Die heiligen Stätten der Evangelien, Regensburg, 1959.
McRay, John,  Archaeology and the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1991.
Safrai, Shmuel, “Jesus and the Hasidim”, Jerusalem Perspective,  January 1, 2004.

[serapha]

I don't believe there are any accounts of the life of Jesus written during his lifetime.

There are many scholars that believe the NZR root of Nazareth was misinterpreted. I will give you links. Nun - Zayin - Resh is also root of "shoot" or "branch" meaning from the root of Jesse.
Nazareth and The Branch: Matthew 2:23 and Interpretation of the Old
Testament
Did the OT prophecy Jesus coming from Nazareth?
Original Torah:  Ancient Words in a Modern Light » Uncategorized

But also the archaeological evidence shows that Nazareth was not a 'city' and was located in a valley. If it existed at all in the first century it was hardly worth mentioning. Josephus does not mention it when he delineates all the villages in the Galilee region.  Also, there was no synogogue in first century Nazareth.

HI there...

 

1) Nazareth is not located in a valley, it is located the southerly side of a hill.  Today, Arab Nazareth sits on top of the ancient city of Nazareth, and on the north of Nazareth slightly up the hillside is the area now known as Nazareth Village.  In preparations for building Nazareth village, many artifacts were uncovered from the first century verifying that the city had been growing up the hillside even in the first century.   Today, there is Nazareth and there is Nazareth Illit, both covering the same hillside extending to the top of the same hill.   
 
2)  For every scholar that promotes the misinterpretation of NZR, there are 10 that support it.   One thing about Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and about any other language.... the majority translation is usually correct, and if one is the only one translating in their particular realm, well, their realm is probably wrong.

3)  The latest archaeological evidences does indicate that Nazareth is much larger than originally though in the first century.  The name "polis" which is Greek and is used to describe the CITY of Nazareth is supported by the archaeological findings I described above as well as the findings in the basement of Cactus House at Mary's Well in Jerusalem. 

Perhaps you would like to read a blog entry on Nazareth that might help you understand first-century Nazareth better?   

Gathering Stones aka Biblical Archaeology: Cactus House

~serapha~

 

[Diane]

Falasha you said, “The evidence of Nazareth being a major city with a synagogue should be held to same level of corroborating evidence as any other site, biblical or not.”
When Nathanael heard that Jesus was from Nazareth he said: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45-46) His remark shows that Nazareth probably wasn’t a major city or a place of prosperous people. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t have a synagogue.
John, who was there, said the sign Pilate had nailed over his head said, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." (John 19:19) Why would Pilate name Nazareth as his city of origin if it wasn’t. His whole intention of having the sign made in 3 languages was to ridicule Jesus. Listing Nazareth as his home city only added to the ridicule of this King of the Jews since the opinion of even Galileans was that ‘nothing good could come from Nazareth.’
That it was common knowledge that Jesus came from Nazareth is shown when Tertullus was accusing Paul before the Roman procurator Felix, he said he was, “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:5)

[falasha]

\\\
[\\
\

Falasha you said, “The evidence of Nazareth being a major city with a synagogue should be held to same level of corroborating evidence as any other site, biblical or not.”
When Nathanael heard that Jesus was from Nazareth he said: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45-46) His remark shows that Nazareth probably wasn’t a major city or a place of prosperous people. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t have a synagogue.
Joh]n, who was there, said the sign Pilate had nailed over his head said, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." (John 19:19) Why would Pilate name Nazareth as his city of origin if it wasn’t. His whole intention of having the sign made in 3 languages was to ridicule Jesus. Listing Nazareth as his home city only added to the ridicule of this King of the Jews since the opinion of even Galileans was that ‘nothing good could come from Nazareth.’
That it was common knowledge that Jesus came from Nazareth is shown when Tertullus was accusing Paul before the Roman procurator Felix, he said he was, “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:5)

YES! I agree with everything you have said (except that there could have been a synogogue). 

Jesus was called a Nazarene not because He was from Nazareth but because He was a branch (NZR) from the root of Jesse. This verse from Isaiah (written in old Hebrew) was a clue to the coming Messiah. The Judeans and Samarians waiting for deliverance from the Romans were evaluating ALL the clues (much as we do now) and the populace had misinterpreted being from Nazareth as one of them.

But the main reason I don't think He was from Nazareth is because it is not a fishing village and Jesus was a fisherman. The sign of the early church was a fish. I think Jesus was from Kaper Naum. They have a first century synogogue and plenty of hills to throw people off of.

\]]\