Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the bible was never assembled to be used literally. Literally true or literally false is irrelevant. But it amazes me the lengths pathological's will write and write and write and write ...
I agree. Does not the inscription actually name Nazareth as the place they moved to? Kind of hard to move to a place called Nazareth if it did not exist.
Amazingly, it seems like he still doesn't get it folks!
I had a look but the 'Nazareth inscription' brings up another stone entirely. An edict against interfering with tombs. This was found in Nazareth and I believe we don't know which Caesar or indeed where it came from. For all we know it could be rubble from Sepphoris used in building the post war Nazareth. The efforts to link this with the supposed events in Jerusalem are frankly ludicrous.
I must find out exactly what the writing/ inscription about the priestly family says.
The Caesarea inscription is the relevant one.
Good old Wiki hath it thus:
The first non-Christian reference to Nazareth is an inscription on a marble fragment from a synagogue found in Caesarea Maritima in 1962.[28] This fragment gives the town's name in Hebrew as נצרת (n-ṣ-r-t). The inscription dates to c. AD 300 and chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, AD 132-35.[29] (See "Middle Roman to Byzantine Periods" below.) An 8th-century AD Hebrew inscription, which was the earliest known Hebrew reference to Nazareth prior to the discovery of the inscription above, uses the same form.[13]
Thus the inscription is far later but refers to the 1st c after the Jewish war and Pneuma's argument is that the place already existed. I shall refresh my memory of the text.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-15-2016 at 06:35 AM..
"The inscription of 3rd c AD relating to a list of priestly families is from a synagogue and there are three fragments, shown in the image. One missing piece supposedly supplied the name 'Nazareth' even though some argue that.
"What was required—from the point of view of a conservative Christian seeking evidence—was the actual word “Nazareth” found on a fragment of the Caesarea inscription. Only this would show that Klein was correct. Given such a ‘discovery,’ it would be possible to establish, once and for all, the existence of Nazareth at least from the second century CE onwards.
A small fragment of marble—yet one containing the critical letters— was enough. On the basis of fragment C—that is, on the basis of the photo published by Talmon in 1958—it was already possible for Avi Yonah to theoretically reconstruct the entire inscription (reproduced at right), based on the studies of Samuel Klein."
It seems that the lowest fragments A and B endin and beginning the lines of text just relate the courses of families. The fragment above 'C' was found later by the assistant director of the dig. Unbelievably, I read it has gone missing! You do not lose important finds at archaeologcal digs.
This site gives the text "The first of these fragments, which was discovered within the vicinity of the remains of a late third or early fourth century A.D. synagogue, contains parts of four lines of the inscription inscribed in square Hebrew characters. It reads, ". . . Mamliah . . . Nazareth . . . Akhlah . . . Migdal [Magdala]" (see figure 1).
The second fragment, which was discovered (along with a fragment of a synagogue chancel screen) in the remains of the marble pavement of a late Byzantine structure, contains parts of three lines inscribed in identical square Hebrew characters. It reads, ". . . priestly course . . . priestly course . . . priestly course . . ." (see figure 2).
Some years ago another fragment, also containing parts of three lines in scribed in comparable square Hebrew characters, was picked up on the surface soil at Caesarea. It reads, "The fifteenth priestly course . . . The sixteenth priestly course . . . The seventeenth priestly course ..."
The figures don't seem to be given, but it seems that the secon and third fragments (beginning and ending the text) are A and B which were the first to be found and the one containing the names was the one found by the assistant director.
The assistant Director (and I am not going to say anything about Microletters) writes" I have not yet called attention to my discovery of the critical section of a Caesarean inscription of the twenty-four priestly courses, with its mention of a Nazareth as one of the villages settled in the late first century A.D. or early second century A.D. by the Jewish temple priesthood (the line of Hapizezzez, the eighteenth family, settled at Nazareth)."
I would like to read the whole reconstructed text, because it seems odd to me that a list of priestly families doesn't seem to fit with no less than four 'villages' in one fragment, as you'd hardly have the families divided up between all the various places.
I find it even odder that Vardaman says that a particular family settled at Nazareth, when four places are named and you couldn't relate(so it seems to me) which family settled in which of the towns or villages.
P.s sorry folks. image on its side, so you should 'rotate left' the piccie, or go to the site.
I'll post a bit of the 'Ministry' article referring to the archaeology of Nazareth. The agricultural aspect seems to be accepted. This one room at least (and possibly more) could be just a farmhouse. Bu:
"Nazareth Settled Before Jesus' Birth Archeological research in and around the Church of the Annunciation has convinced scholars that Nazareth was not only settled as an agricultural village several centuries before Jesus was born but also that it was occupied during His lifetime. Numerous grottoes, silos, cisterns, presses, millstones, and other artifacts have been discovered. In the silos some of the pottery found dates as far back as the Iron II (900- 539 B.C.) period. Other pottery found dates back to the Hellenistic (332-63 B.C.), Roman (63 B.C.-A.D. 324), and Byzantine (A.D. 324-640) periods. In addition twenty-three tombs have been investigated. Of these, eighteen are of the kokim type, a type that "virtually became the canonical form of the Jewish family grave" between 150 B.C. and A.D. 150; four were sealed with "rolling stones," a type of closure that "seems to have been a characteristic Jewish practice only in the Roman period;" 10 and two contained a variety of objects such as pottery lamps and vases and glass vessels that date from the first to the fourth centuries A.D."
This skips over the fact that none of this is to be related to Jesus' time. We have Iron age, Hellenistic and Byzantine as well as Roman and that is presented as though it guarantees that Nazareth existed Jesus' time. In fact that the Bible does not mention Nazareth in the OT (nor does Paul use the term) indicates that none of those settlements in the area prior to when we can be sure Nazareth existed was indeed Nazareth. The Wiki entryy talks of this being a settlement after the Bar Kochba revolt which is getting on to the mid 2nd c, I believe. So it would not be surprising if a Nazareth village hadn't sprung up in the later 1st c. But there is actually nothing whatsoever other than that one hous that can be dated to Jesus' time.
The Caesarea inscription does suggest that towns were named rather than districts, but I'm starting to have my doubts about that fragment C.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-15-2016 at 07:53 AM..
There is some work being done of working out the various redactions of the OT and, if I amd right, it is possible to work out original common text was being used (and a common text there is, not just common story) and thus where it was added to.
Are you saying the JEPD all come from a common text?
Do you have a link or something about this common text that I can look at?
I find it even odder that Vardaman says that a particular family settled at Nazareth, when four places are named and you couldn't relate(so it seems to me) which family settled in which of the towns or villages.
Vardaman is a charlatan old beast. I'll dig out the evidence when i ger home.
Quote:
This skips over the fact that none of this is to be related to Jesus' time. We have Iron age, Hellenistic and Byzantine as well as Roman and that is presented as though it guarantees that Nazareth existed Jesus' time. In fact that the Bible does not mention Nazareth in the OT (nor does Paul use the term) indicates that none of those settlements in the area prior to when we can be sure Nazareth existed was indeed Nazareth. The Wiki entryy talks of this being a settlement after the Bar Kochba revolt which is getting on to the mid 2nd c, I believe. So it would not be surprising if a Nazareth village hadn't sprung up in the later 1st c. But there is actually nothing whatsoever other than that one hous that can be dated to Jesus' time.
Pricesely old shoe. It's what I have been saying from the outset. When you have artefacts from well before the 1st century and artefacts from the late first century but nothing from the early first century, its a pretty safe bet that there was nothing there in the early first century.
...and even that house can't be dated to Jesus's time.
The verifiable evidence points to Nazareth being nothing but an isolated farm or two in the early first century, gradually becoming more populated after the Jewish was from 70CE onward.
I thought we were going to stay out of each others posts Raf?
When you keep repeating things which are not correct that relate to me, I will comment on it. The question is about whether Nazareth existed in the early first century not about whether it existed at all. Your desperation to prove that the ancient superstitious tripe that you believe in is true blinds you. You just can't grasp that references to Nazareth are referring to the Nazareth of the late first to early second century. There is no verifiable evidence for a first century Nazareth but plenty of verifiable evidence there was a settlement started ther following the Jewish war...from 70CE onward. Swallow your pride and live with it.
I find it even odder that Vardaman says that a particular family settled at Nazareth, when four places are named and you couldn't relate(so it seems to me) which family settled in which of the towns or villages.
P.s sorry folks. image on its side, so you should 'rotate left' the piccie, or go to the site.
I'll post a bit of the 'Ministry' article referring to the archaeology of Nazareth. The agricultural aspect seems to be accepted. This one room at least (and possibly more) could be just a farmhouse. Bu:
"Nazareth Settled Before Jesus' Birth Archeological research in and around the Church of the Annunciation has convinced scholars that Nazareth was not only settled as an agricultural village several centuries before Jesus was born but also that it was occupied during His lifetime. Numerous grottoes, silos, cisterns, presses, millstones, and other artifacts have been discovered. In the silos some of the pottery found dates as far back as the Iron II (900- 539 B.C.) period. Other pottery found dates back to the Hellenistic (332-63 B.C.), Roman (63 B.C.-A.D. 324), and Byzantine (A.D. 324-640) periods. In addition twenty-three tombs have been investigated. Of these, eighteen are of the kokim type, a type that "virtually became the canonical form of the Jewish family grave" between 150 B.C. and A.D. 150; four were sealed with "rolling stones," a type of closure that "seems to have been a characteristic Jewish practice only in the Roman period;" 10 and two contained a variety of objects such as pottery lamps and vases and glass vessels that date from the first to the fourth centuries A.D."
This skips over the fact that none of this is to be related to Jesus' time. We have Iron age, Hellenistic and Byzantine as well as Roman and that is presented as though it guarantees that Nazareth existed Jesus' time. In fact that the Bible does not mention Nazareth in the OT (nor does Paul use the term) indicates that none of those settlements in the area prior to when we can be sure Nazareth existed was indeed Nazareth. The Wiki entryy talks of this being a settlement after the Bar Kochba revolt which is getting on to the mid 2nd c, I believe. So it would not be surprising if a Nazareth village hadn't sprung up in the later 1st c. But there is actually nothing whatsoever other than that one hous that can be dated to Jesus' time.
The Caesarea inscription does suggest that towns were named rather than districts, but I'm starting to have my doubts about that fragment C.
If pieces of pottery, just using pottery as an example, were found that dated from the early roman period of AD1 to AD 375 are archeologist saying they have found pieces only for the later half of the early roman period or are they saying they have pieces that span the whole early roman period?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
part 3
