Did Jesus REALLY come from Nazareth?

by gumby 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  gumby

  The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth'

  And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
  (Luke1.26,27)

  And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
  (Luke 2.3,4)

  But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.(Matthew 2.22,23)

  However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

  • Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. • The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

  • No ancient historian or geographer mention Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

  'Never heard of the place' – Josephus

  In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

  Any fundies out there who can explain all this? ...or did I miss something?

  Gumby
• 

  peacefulpete

  Gumby..in addition to this interesting question I will add another. Proponents of a historical Jesus (as opposed to the position of the charactor is of purely mythological nature) often site this "detail" as evidence of an actual man at the core of the legend. Why? Because this element seems an odd bit to invent. It is asssumed that it would have been easier to create a legend about a man of Jerusalem or Bethlehem. The latter to satisfy a first century interpretation of Micah 5:2. This position seems to ignore the use and application that Matt. makes from the name "Nazareth". Matt. creates the impression that the place was prophetic. It was not. At Matt.2:23 he conjures a prophecy from thin air. Most Bible apologists insist that under inspiration Matt. "discerned" a prophecy from Isa 11:1 that speaks of a "sprout" of the root of Jessie. The word at Is. is "nester". It has a similar sound as he city name Nazareth but that is all. So my point is that this "detail" of Jesus being in some way from Nazareth may simply be another of the dozens of patent creations of the writers, in this case a phonetic similarity is spun as if it were a prophecy. The Bethlehem story in Matt and Luke is regarded almost universally as a late addition to the legend added to give persuasiveness to the new faith by making it appear to "fullfill prophecy". This illustrates the literary nature of these Jesus stories.
• 

  gumby

  Intresting comments PP,

  Here is a little more I found on this,

  The archaeological evidence?

  The world has been blessed by the fact that excavation at Nazareth has been conducted by Catholic archaeologists. In an earlier age they may well have "found" sandals neatly inscribed with "property of Jesus Christ". As it is, they diligently extract every last drop of sanctity from some pretty meagre findings. Yet for all their creative interpretations even the Franciscans cannot disguise the fact that the lack of evidence for a pre-Jesus village at the Nazareth site is virtually total.

  I also noticed no fundies commenting. Where you guys at?

  Gumby
• 

  Francois

  Well, he damn sure ain't from Cincinnati.

  ft
• 

  gumby

  At the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

  Gumby
• 

  blondie

  Francois, do you have any archaeological proof that Jesus is not from Cincinnati?

  Blondie
• 

  gumby

  I know for a FACT....his from Kansas!

  Gumby
• 

  hooberus

  Gumby some of the information that you have used in the past has come from sites such as:
  

  "Pagan origins of the Christ myth"

  The following site exposes some of the "scholarship" of this site:

  http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/JCMyth_1.html

  Another site that you link (and where you got the information you posted for this thread) is the jesusneverexisted site:

  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

  The jesusneverexisted.com site is a poor site also.

  For example the jesusneverexisted.com site says:
  

  Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty -eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

  What the site doesn't mention here is that the same book of Josephus that talks about Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel also talks about James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. The reference to Jesus Christ is even in the same chapter as the others, and even in the same paragraph as one of the others!

  While the site mentions and disputes the first reference of Josephus regarding Jesus, I can't find where it even mentions the second reference to Jesus which is generally accepted. The site uses Joesphus as a source for the historicity of Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel and ignores the reference to Jesus who was called Christ (a reference which occurrs in the same book, chapter, and even paragraph!).

  The various first century witness of the books of the new Testamnt are more than enough to show that Jesus lived. The following site gives an overview of the extra-biblical evidence for the Historicity of Jesus. I have been able to confirm from other sources (including hard volumes) some of the information on the site, and it appears to be a well documented site. The site has several pages which inorder to view a person might need to type the page number in after the "HistJesus" section of the address. http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus1.htm

  This site also discusses the "Nazareth didn't exist" claims. (I have not though reviewed this information (ie: Nazareth). But here is the link.

  http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus8.htm
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hooberus...long time. ....The sites you offered ostensibly as support for your position are very helpful for objective readers to analyse the facts and the sorry defense for historical christianity being offered. I especially like the arguement that a virgin birth was not a part of the savior mythologies because in some versians of the tales the mother had had previous children. Never mind the fact that the birth of the savior child results from a divinely performed sexless conception.(emaculate conception to Catholics). The site you offered even explained that "virgin births" did not always mean that the mother was never sexually active. She may have or may not have, that was not the point. The divine male parentage without human sperm was and is. The Skeptical Review has many of Till's thorough bashing of this garbeled double speak on the site you posted.
• 

  Earnest

  Gumby,

  Some years ago I visited Nazareth and stayed at the Church of St Joseph which acted as a sort of youth hostel in the village. They were kind enough to show me some archaeological excavations on the grounds which I was told was a first century house and "probably" that of Mary and Joseph. The latter was probably wishful thinking but there is some evidence of a village in the first century.

  Excavations by Belarmino Bagatti in 1955 below the Annunciation Church and the Church of Saint Joseph in Nazareth revealed pottery dating from the Iron Age (900-600 BC) to about 500 AD including 1st century Roman pottery. Twenty-three ancient tombs 180 metres north, west and south of the Annunciation Church indicate the limits of ancient Nazareth. The tombs would have been placed outside the village and serve, in fact, to delimit its circumference for us.

  In November 1996 Stephen Pfann of the Center for the Study of Early Chistianity identified an ancient wine press associated with agricultural terraces on the grounds of Nazareth Hospital and the land adjacent to it. Potsherds were found on the surface of the terraces dating from various periods beginning with the early to late Roman period. An archaeological survey of the surface of the land adjacent to Nazareth Hospital was conducted in February by Ross Voss, R. Mikel Rapuano, Stephen Pfann, and Jan Karnis, all from the Center for the Study of Early Christianity. There is a brief report on this at http://www.treefort.org/~rgrogan/web/nazareth_jesus_ap.html

  It is not surprising that the village was insignificant as there was only one water source (now known as Mary's well) and there were doubtless many such hamlets the majority of which we have no record at all.

  Earnest