Archaeology at Nazareth

[oldarchystudent]

When you consider that we have far less proof that what we have from the ancient Greek philosophers was not tampered with, the consistency of the Biblical text through the centuries cannot be denied.

I'm not sure we can say that. There are internal inconsistancies even amoung the gospels. Not to mention the number of animals taken onto the ark that I mentioned earlier. The content of these books was decided on well after the fact and much was made apocryhal. Nag Hamadi scrolls also shed different light on what was accepted into the present Bible. I think there is plenty of room to ask questions. But I do think they new the landscape, that's all I'm saying.

[Minimalist]

So much for archaeology....although the general lack of any sort of archaeological evidence for the NT is pretty compelling in and of itself.

[Guest]

And I'm saying we have far more proof that the Gospels and the rest of the Bible were not altered than we do that the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers were not altered.

[oldarchystudent]

So much for archaeology....although the general lack of any sort of archaeological evidence for the NT is pretty compelling in and of itself.

No I agree that the apparent lack of a Nazareth site where it was expected is compelling. But it's mentioned in near-contemporary writings, so where is it?

OR - there was mention in Holy Blood Holy Grail of the term Nazarite and Nazareth, Nazarene being confused, one referring to a place, the other referring to a resistance movement similar to the Sicarii (sp) from which the name Judas Escariot may be derived.

Long time since I read that book - help please guys.

[Guest]

Many modern archaeological finds have confirmed New Testament history, on top of all the confirmations of the OT history, it's the most accurate ancient history book ever written, never shown to have any inaccuracy.

[oldarchystudent]

Archaeology does indeed confirm some placenames etc. But as I said to Min's post, these people knew the landscape and of course would refer to real place names. However, if in 2,000 years archeologists find remenants of the Kremlin, it won't prove that James Bond existed.

[Guest]

The first inhabitants of that area were the Jebusites, who were offspring of Canaan, they were cousins of the Sidonians, who were navigators based nearby at Sidon (the original megalithic ruins of which are now submerged offshore, south of Beirut).

[oldarchystudent]

You mentioned a date for these people earlier - around 2200 BCE I think? That's well after the finds mentioned.

[Beagle]

Nice article Min, although somewhat scant. The only cultural conclusion I saw drawn was that the society was "stratified" which makes it like every other society.

Of course if they're going to boil the flesh off of the bone there isn't much to adorn or decorate.

It's contemporaneous with Jericho but I don't remember off hand anything about the early burial practices there.

[Leona Conner]

[quote="oldarchystudent"]You mentioned a date for these people earlier - around 2200 BCE I think? That's well after the finds mentioned.[/quote]

GV and Arch have their own dating system which has nothing to do with science.

Biblical belief demands invalidation of the scientifc facts presented.

[Guest]

Leona, would you bet your life that a C14 date is accurate?

[Guest]

What supposed scientific facts are you talking about, Leona, which Bible believers ostensibly must invalidate?

[Minimalist]

And I'm saying we have far more proof that the Gospels and the rest of the Bible were not altered than we do that the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers were not altered.

There is NO archaeological proof for the gospels and plenty of contradictions within them to discredit them as history.

[Minimalist]

Many modern archaeological finds have confirmed New Testament history, on top of all the confirmations of the OT history, it's the most accurate ancient history book ever written, never shown to have any inaccuracy.

Which, exactly?

[Minimalist]

So much for archaeology....although the general lack of any sort of archaeological evidence for the NT is pretty compelling in and of itself.

No I agree that the apparent lack of a Nazareth site where it was expected is compelling. But it's mentioned in near-contemporary writings, so where is it?

OR - there was mention in Holy Blood Holy Grail of the term Nazarite and Nazareth, Nazarene being confused, one referring to a place, the other referring to a resistance movement similar to the Sicarii (sp) from which the name Judas Escariot may be derived.

Long time since I read that book - help please guys.

Probably as good a place as any to post this.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer, which means a shoot or sprout--an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu.