Home From the Time of Christ Discovered in Nazareth

[maklelan]

Even been in a discussion with someone who asserts that Nazareth wasn't inhabited during the time of Christ? Ever wonder why the only people who claim this are people who can't even spell archaeology correctly? Yeah, me too. Anyway, refer them to this article.

[volgadon]

At last! That does make one of my comments to John T out of date. The only thing they had ever discovered earlier were some iron age pottery shards. The strongest case until now for it beiing inhabitated was the water. I have a book about the Galilee from the 60s written by a rabbi in which he regrets that there is no good reason to conclude that Nazareth didn't exist. =)

[Daniel Peterson]

I've seen the purported lack of evidence for the existence of Nazareth at the time of Christ used as an argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 11:13).

This is a nice discovery. Very useful.

[Uncle Dale]

I've seen the purported lack of evidence for the existence of Nazareth at the

time of Christ used as an argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 11:13).

This is a nice discovery. Very useful.

Possibly you are confusing "habitation" with that habitation having a

recognized place name. Probably every square meter of arable land in

Palestine was occupied at one point or another. People had grazed

their goats upon the hillside for ages before (and after) Jesus' time.

Galileans fled up into the hills during the Jewish revolt, a few

decades after the crucifixion, to allude Roman soldiers. Nobody has

questioned the fact that what became "Nazareth" had such habitation

and occupation in those days. There has long been archaeological

evidence of that sort of thing.

The more pertinent question is whether or not this fork-in-the-goat-path

had a name 2000 years ago, and whether such a place-name was the origin

of Nazarene (or Nazarani for you Arabophones). Did the habitation of that

fork-in-the-goat-path give rise to "Jesus of Nazareth" during his lifetime;

or was that term a later misappropriation of "little fishes" or even

something akin to Nazarite?

But then again, you knew all of that already -- and it has nothing to

do with Nephites, Lehites, or even us Josephites...

UD

[volgadon]

Possibly you are confusing "habitation" with that habitation having a

recognized place name. Probably every square meter of arable land in

Palestine was occupied at one point or another. People had grazed

their goats upon the hillside for ages before (and after) Jesus' time.

Galileans fled up into the hills during the Jewish revolt, a few

decades after the crucifixion, to allude Roman soldiers. Nobody has

questioned the fact that what became "Nazareth" had such habitation

and occupation in those days. There has long been archaeological

evidence of that sort of thing.

There is a difference between a hide-out in the hills and a settlement with proper houses.

Also, Nazareth would be the last place rebels would hide out in after the the Revolt, when that area was not only devastated by the Romans, but also was right next to a major administrative centre.

Archaeologists try not to reach conclusions in isolation. Here is a traditional identification, one made within a short time of the gospels, which fits with the few geographic clues in them.

[maklelan]

Possibly you are confusing "habitation" with that habitation having a

recognized place name. Probably every square meter of arable land in

Palestine was occupied at one point or another. People had grazed

their goats upon the hillside for ages before (and after) Jesus' time.

Galileans fled up into the hills during the Jewish revolt, a few

decades after the crucifixion, to allude Roman soldiers. Nobody has

questioned the fact that what became "Nazareth" had such habitation

and occupation in those days. There has long been archaeological

evidence of that sort of thing.

The more pertinent question is whether or not this fork-in-the-goat-path

had a name 2000 years ago, and whether such a place-name was the origin

of Nazarene (or Nazarani for you Arabophones). Did the habitation of that

fork-in-the-goat-path give rise to "Jesus of Nazareth" during his lifetime;

or was that term a later misappropriation of "little fishes" or even

something akin to Nazarite?

But then again, you knew all of that already -- and it has nothing to

do with Nephites, Lehites, or even us Josephites...

UD

Well, the photo shows far more than a "fork-in-the-goat-path":

Granted it was a small city of maybe 300 or 400 people, but the location of Nazareth is not really a problem. The site has been continually inhabited since the early Roman period and its identification has never been disputed. Mark is most likely the earliest text to mention Jesus as coming from Nazareth in Galilee, which puts it in the mid to late first century CE. After that it is mentioned in the second and third centuries CE, well before the spurious traditions began to pop up about locales associated with the life of Christ.

[Uncle Dale]

There is a difference between a hide-out in the hills and a settlement with proper houses.

I lived on a hillside in South Asia, with animal tracks running by

my mud hut. In a heavy monsoon rainstorm it dissolved back into

mud, straw and a few stones. But, down the hill a ways, a guy had

a more substantial house -- and up the hill there were only goats,

until the top, where travelers had carved natural niches in the

rock into small shelters, full of rubbish.

If I continued down the hill, I eventually came to a structure

where postal mail was processed, cigarettes sold, and passing

regional police given shelter for the night.

After that, I finally reached a place with a name -- population:

six families.

My hut on the hillside had no name. It was identified by being

"up the hill from the Soti rice field." And although my hut

contained a library, with the only Book of Mormon within several

days' walk, my religion neither affected the place nor the

place my religion.

I received a postcard from that hillside a few years ago. There

is now a teahouse, a rice mill, a water-tank, and a dozen houses

there. I suspect that travelers still take shelter in the "caves"

atop that hill. But it still does not have a place-name.

Also, Nazareth would be the last place rebels would hide out in after the the Revolt,

when that area was not only devastated by the Romans, but also was right next to a major administrative centre.

Certainly not for very long. But for "boxed-in" refugees, and travelers, the

"hide-outs" would have served a purpose -- just like the caves on my hillside.

Archaeologists try not to reach conclusions in isolation. Here is a traditional identification,

one made within a short time of the gospels, which fits with the few geographic clues in them.

Like I said, nobody with any education ever said the place was uninhabited. Further

digging may one day locate a Canaanite latrine or neolithic projectile choppings,

for all I know. The question to be answered, is whether a certain "Jesus" grew up

there -- and whether the place had a name then, that was used as the identifier of

that particular "Jesus's" home. If not, then other explanations must be sought,

UD

[handys003]

Sigh....I can still hear it now. There are those who will still say it doesn't prove anything. It still does not show scientific proof that Jesus existed.

[Daniel Peterson]

Methinks, Dale, thou dost protest too much.

[volgadon]

I lived on a hillside in South Asia, with animal tracks running by

my mud hut. In a heavy monsoon rainstorm it dissolved back into

mud, straw and a few stones. But, down the hill a ways, a guy had

a more substantial house -- and up the hill there were only goats,

until the top, where travelers had carved natural niches in the

rock into small shelters, full of rubbish.

If I continued down the hill, I eventually came to a structure

where postal mail was processed, cigarettes sold, and passing

regional police given shelter for the night.

After that, I finally reached a place with a name -- population:

six families.

My hut on the hillside had no name. It was identified by being

"up the hill from the Soti rice field." And although my hut

contained a library, with the only Book of Mormon within several

days' walk, my religion neither affected the place nor the

place my religion.

I received a postcard from that hillside a few years ago. There

is now a teahouse, a rice mill, a water-tank, and a dozen houses

there. I suspect that travelers still take shelter in the "caves"

atop that hill. But it still does not have a place-name.

All well and nice, but Nazareth has a different topography. Said hillside would have been quite visible from the nearby Sepphoris, a Roman-friendly centre. Not far from there was a major Roman road. That said, the house was found at the foothill.

Certainly not for very long. But for "boxed-in" refugees, and travelers, the

"hide-outs" would have served a purpose -- just like the caves on my hillside.

If you can find caves on the top of that hill, be my guest.

Like I said, nobody with any education ever said the place was uninhabited. Further

digging may one day locate a Canaanite latrine or neolithic projectile choppings,

for all I know. The question to be answered, is whether a certain "Jesus" grew up

there -- and whether the place had a name then, that was used as the identifier of

that particular "Jesus's" home. If not, then other explanations must be sought,

UD

Dale, what reason do we have for supposing that earlier ruins found in a site known as Nazareth from earlier records was not the same place or had a different name? If you can provide me with a good argument for that, please do so. Otherwise, there is no good reason to assume that this wasn't Nazareth.

Also, Nazareth seems like a peculiar place for Mark to invent.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Nazareth seems like a peculiar place for Mark to invent.

What was the date of the last redaction or addition to

Mark's manuscript, whereby the name was attributed to

a certain village in Galilee?

What was the date that any term sounding similar to "Nazareth"

was first applied to Jesus or his followers?

What was the date that any extra-canonical source first

mentioned "Nazareth" as a place-name?

What Hebrew, Aramaic or koine words are close enough to

"Nazareth" in pronunciation, so as to have possibly been

confused with that place-name?

Can the Arabic "Nazarani" (and similar sounding words)

be traced directly back to place-name Nazareth? What do

the Arab writers/scholars of antiquity say about that?

UD

[maklelan]

A comment from a thread on CARM that points to the same discovery:

I bet you countless Mormons are frantically searching atheistic websites to find holes in this discovery to relay back to us. The Bible cannot have evidence because the Book of Mormon doesn't. They have to be comparable.

The depravity there knows no bounds. Another comment:

Isn't it strange how Archeology keeps on supporting the bible?

It's strange that this person seems to think that this is true. John T on another thread ("Wiki Nails Mormon Scholars") makes another equally bewildering comment:

While doing a web search of the terms "LDS Encyclopedia" the first hit was Wikipedia that had this disclaimer, that I never saw before:

This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or remooved. (March 2009) [hyperlinks edited out]

That does not give a stellar review to their scholarship, and a highly independent source declares brianh correct.

I don't know what he's talking about at the end, but John seems to think the Wiki disclaimer refers to the actual Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Is anyone else just slowly shaking their head with their mouth hanging open? In addition, calling Wikipedia a "highly independent source" is like calling the Raiders a "highly respectable football team." Wikipedia is a joke (when it comes to the Humanities).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wikipedia is a joke (when it comes to the Humanities).