http://www.LordMovie.com
Watch a sunday mass at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth
Jesus bless you all...Amen
Contrary views regarding Jesus at Nazareth
Some historians have called into question the traditional association of Nazareth with the life of the historical Jesus. Instead, they suggest that what was known of Jesus in his own time as a title, that is, (Nazarene, or even, perhaps, 'Nazarite'), was, in later times, corrupted into a cognomen of place; thereby, in effect --and apparently by design, see below-- assigning Nazareth to him as his hometown. Alfred Loisy, for example, in The Birth of the Christian Religion, argues that Iesous Nazarene meant not Jesus "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene."[46]
The meaning of the term "Nazarene" is much debated. Matthew 2:23 says of Iesous (Jesus), "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 Nazoraios (Nazarene)." However, in the Hebrew scriptures there is no equivalent to Nazoraios/Nazarene; nor is there any reference to a city of 'Nazareth'. Also, linking the word "Nazarene" to the name "Nazareth" is linguistically problematic. [47] Prof. Michael L. Brown, author of "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" (Vol. 4, Baker Books, 2006) says that Matthew arrived at the word "Nazarene" through a play on words. Professor Brown elaborates that the text used by Matthew was the one in Isaiah 11:1 which says, "A shoot will come from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit." The word for "Branch" in Hebrew is "netser" thus explaining the inclusion of this text in the Gospel of Matthew. In any case, early Jesus-followers were certainly known as "Nazarenes" or by some closely related term (cf. Acts 24:5). Though some scholars attempt to link "Nazarene" to "Nazirite" (a person who had taken a vow of holiness and thus was 'separated out' from the masses), the Gospel portrait of Jesus is hardly that of the ascetic Jewish Nazirite who abstains from alcohol and avoids corpses.
James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.[48] Strange originally estimated Nazareths population at the time of Christ to be roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people, but later, in a subsequent publication, at a maximum of about 480.[49] Some have argued that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[50]
Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[51] It may be noted that Zindler is not an archaeologist and has not excavated the site. His arguments include the following:
No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[52]
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 Zebulun (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.
Zindler's view is historically possible if Nazareth came into existence at about the same time --or at least not long before-- the New Testament gospels were being written and redacted. For those gospel writers who do mention Nazareth, most scholars place their work between the two Jewish-Roman wars (70 AD-132 AD), which is also the earliest possible dating for the Roman (kokh-type) tombs in the Nazareth basin (see "Earliest history & archaeological evidence" above).
Loading...
7:51nazareth telegramby tankard120124,432 views
Featured Video
Link to this comment:
All Comments (0)