Reply #93: A Contrary view... [View All]

[TRYPHO]

A Contrary View (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth)

Some historians have called the city's traditional association with the life of Jesus into question, suggesting instead that what was originally a title was corrupted (Nazarene) into the name of his hometown (alternately, Nazara or Nazaret or Nazareth). Alfred Loisy, for example, in The Birth of Christianity argues that Iesous Nazarene meant not "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene."

Frank Zindler, managing editor of the American Atheist Press, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.<28> His arguments include the following:

* No "ancient historians or geographers mention before the beginning of the fourth century ."<29>

* Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
* Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
* Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
* Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

Also from the same page:

In the mid-1990s, shopkeeper Elias Shama discovered tunnels under his shop near Mary’s Well in Nazareth. The tunnels were eventually recognized as a hypocaust (a space below the floor into which warm air was pumped) for a bathhouse. The site was excavated in 1997-98 by Y. Alexandre, and the archaeological remains exposed were ascertained to date from the Middle Roman, Crusader, Mamluk and Ottoman periods.

Since no one has said anything much since the mid 1990's, I'd suggest your excitement seems a little misplaced.

TRYPHO