Talk:Nazareth

From Academic Kids

As my research into the history of the early Christian Church and The Bible gets deeper the more it appears that Nazareth did not exist until more modern times and that Nazareth is a distortion (deliberate?) of Nazorean/Nazarene, a word used to describe a certain set of beliefs different from the mainstream Jews.

Where did you read this? Please say "Not in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, nor in The Messianic Legacy -- I didn't get it from Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln." Mirv 18:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To clarify: The claim in the first paragraph above is one of Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's The Messianic Legacy (p. 46; '96 Arrow Books paperback), and also in Holy Blood, Holy Grail (p. 341, p 411; '96 Arrow Books paperback); neither book provides any kind of citation for this claim, natch. If either of these are the source for a claim that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' time, or that Jesus never lived in Nazareth, don't bother. (If you have a more reliable source, then feel free to chew me out, but don't cite conspiratorial crackpots as factual sources.) --Mirv 18:52, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Youre obviously further into this than I. My primary reference is from the Rosecrucians and I dont yet know if they are crackpots or not. As regards the orthodox mistakes about Iscariot, they do suggest something similar to Schonfield's reference in The Passover Plot: Jesus wasnt dead when lowered from the cross, for what that is worth, and Schonfield is the one who writes that Nazareth was an area, not a town, where a small number of people lived without temple. Given the plethora of contradictory writings about that time, and the apparent authenticity of the Nazarae/Nazarene distinction, I am stirred to follow that information to find more about Nazareth's history. There are a number of references to that area being occupied by Essenes, as well, and of course lots of folks suggesting Jesus was an Essene or was trained by the Essenes.

Nazareth vs. Nazarene

I've inserted the word some into the following passage before the word historians:

However, historians have called this into question,
suggesting instead that it is based on a mistranslation
of Greek sources. Such historians argue that Iesou
Nazarene was not "from Nazareth", but rather that his
title was "Nazarene."

As it was, the passage suggested that there is general agreement among historians that this theory is correct. Also, I reccomend that at least one historian who supports this theory be sited or the entire passage be deleted.

What the hell is up with this article?

Why is this article mostly devoted to arguing that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century AD? (Also, don't, well, the gospels mention Nazareth as existing, and weren't they, um, written in the 1st century AD?

Matthew 2:22-23 "But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:/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 Nazarene."

Mark 1:9 "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan."

Luke 2:4 "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem."

John 1:46 "And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see."

It seems most unlikely that the gospel-writers would have made up a non-existent city, doesn't it? john k 23:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)