Did Bethlehem and Nazareth Exist in Jesus Day

4/8/2016 Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?
Is there a God?
Search this website …
Reliable information for those asking life's big questions
HOME IS THERE LIFE CLUES BELIEF CHANGE WISDOM BLOG

page … a God? Happy? to God? Religion the world & fun Posts
SPEAK ABOUT
to me Why?
Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?

28 May, 2012 — 27 Comments
Not so very long ago, many internet critics of christianity were pointing out that there was no
archaeological evidence of settlements at Bethlehem and Nazareth in the ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century. This
demonstrates, they said, despite the fact that few scholars agreed with them, that these towns
didn’t exist, and that therefore the Bible accounts are not historical.
But three years later the situation has changed.
Nazareth
http://www.isthereagod.info/blog/belief/didbethlehemandnazarethexistinjesusday/ 1/21
Until a few years ago, the only archaeological evidence for Nazareth amounted to little more
than the remains of a winepress, a few tombs and a few artefacts. However in December 2009,
the Israel Antiquities Authority issued a press release announcing that a house in Nazareth (see
photo above) had now been excavated and had been found to contain artefacts from the “early
Roman period” (‫ﰝ‬ɻrst and second centuries). The archaeologists also found a pit hewn out of
stone with a concealed entrance, which they believe was constructed as protection during the
Jewish revolt of 67 CE.
This was seen by the Authority and others (The Guardian and the Huf‫ﰝ‬ɻngton Post) as conclusive
evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist in the ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century. Based on the number of tombs
found previously, they conclude that it was a small hamlet of about 50 houses.
Those who believe Nazareth didn’t exist have adjusted to this evidence, and tend to denigrate it
as “sensationalist” (Nazareth: the town that theology built), or argue that the evidence doesn’t
relate to the exact period of Jesus’ life, but several decades later (nazarethmyth.info).
Nevertheless, scholars, who generally didn’t doubt that Nazareth existed as a small village, have
been reinforced in their conclusions.
Bethlehem
There was even less archaeological evidence for Bethlehem – virtually nothing before the
fourth century – giving sceptics even more basis for their arguments that this showed the
unreliability of the New Testament. But that has changed slightly in the past few weeks.
Recently the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that

archaeologists working in the city of David area of
Jerusalem had discovered a small (1.5 cm) ‘bulla’ (see
photo), a piece of clay used to make an impression in wax,
sealing a document so it couldn’t be altered. This small
bulla apparently accompanied a delivery of goods to the
king of Judah about 7 centuries BCE, and identi‫ﰝ‬ɻes that the
shipment was despatched from Bethlehem.
This shows the existence of town named Bethlehem seven

centuries before Jesus, the ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst independent corroboration
of the Bible’s references to the town. This doesn’t prove it existed in Jesus’ day also, but if it was
there 700 years before and 400 years afterwards, it suggests that it probably did indeed exist at
the time of Jesus (see report in the Los Angeles Times).
Cautionary tales
Scholars say that only a very small fraction of the artefacts of the time have ever been
discovered, and no-one knows what discoveries are yet to come. This makes perilous any
argument that a place doesn’t exist based on the lack of ‫ﰝ‬ɻnds, and most scholars are cautious
about making such claims.
Photos from Israel Antiquities Authority
Like 56 people like this. Be the first of your friends.
Filed Under: Belief
Tagged With: Archaeology, Bible, Christianity, Evidence, History, Jesus, Nazareth, NewTestament
« The Jesus myth wars heat up Ethical chocolate update »
Comments
Arkenaten says
29 May, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Not a single shred of evidence from the ‘Nazareth’ discovery has been put forward for
independant veri‫ﰝ‬ɻcation.
Interesting that until this ‘‫ﰝ‬ɻnd’ the only ‘evidence’ was from what Bagatti uncovered, and nothing
he found could be attributed for certain to the time that Jesus was supposed to have existed.
Furthermore, a Church spokeman is on record stating that until this discovery no scienti‫ﰝ‬ɻc
evidence for Nazareth existed.
unkleE says
30 May, 2012 at 8:27 am
G’day Akhenaten, thanks for reading my blog.
“Not a single shred of evidence from the ‘Nazareth’ discovery has been put forward for
independant veri‫ﰝ‬ɻcation.”
Are you suggesting this invalidates the evidence. or what? What would you be expecting should
be done?
“Interesting that until this ‘‫ﰝ‬ɻnd’ the only ‘evidence’ was from what Bagatti uncovered, and
nothing he found could be attributed for certain to the time that Jesus was supposed to have
existed.”
I’m not sure this is correct. In Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002):
Final Report in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 2007 Volume 25, there is
this comment about Nazareth:
[One author] “identi‫ﰝ‬ɻed an ancient winepress associated with agricultural terraces in a small
valley about 500 m from the site of ancient Nazareth. …. Potsherds found on the surface of the
terraces dated, in particular, from what appeared to be the Early-to-Late Roman Period. It was
concluded that these terraces and the wine press were connected with the nearby original town
of ancient Nazareth, located just to the east. …. Surface pottery …. with the predominant forms
deriving from the Early to Late Roman period.”
The early Roman period was ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst and second century. So that is clear evidence of settlement
before this present study, which simply con‫ﰝ‬ɻrms the earlier discoveries and makes a ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst
century date almost certain.
Arkenaten says
30 May, 2012 at 9:01 am
“Are you suggesting this invalidates the evidence. or what? What would you be expecting should
be done?”
Invalidates? No. But does it provide proof of the claims. No. Not at all.
But a discovery of this claimed magnitude should have been subject to peer review. It was not,
and all mention of the discovery was removed from the of‫ﰝ‬ɻcial website shortly after the single
press release. The area was covered and built over so now, no independant veri‫ﰝ‬ɻcation is
possible.
I approach such issues with an attitude of: “If it be true then the truth will reveal itself.”
You and other Christians, assume it IS true then look for anything to back up your belief.
This is what faith is all about.
And that does not require truth, merely belief and obededience.
“The early Roman period was ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst and second century. So that is clear evidence of settlement
before this present study, which simply con‫ﰝ‬ɻrms the earlier discoveries and makes a ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst
century date almost certain.”
You see how ambiguous this statement is? It leads the believer to assume that the Nazareth in
the Bible was around during the time of the character of Jesus.
What a leap of faith!

And you did not indicate if you have read Rene Salm?
I promise it will be an eye opener. Whether you agree with his point of view or not, his research is
meticulous.
IgnorantiaNescia says
30 May, 2012 at 1:22 pm
“Invalidates? No. But does it provide proof of the claims. No. Not at all.
But a discovery of this claimed magnitude should have been subject to peer review. It was not,
and all mention of the discovery was removed from the of‫ﰝ‬ɻcial website shortly after the single
press release. The area was covered and built over so now, no independant veri‫ﰝ‬ɻcation is
possible.”
The same is true for so many other ‫ﰝ‬ɻnds in Levantine archeology – they are not publisheds.
Nothing unusual there. Besides, outside a tiny lunatic internet fringe, few question the existence
of Nazareth.
unkleE says
30 May, 2012 at 1:39 pm
“But a discovery of this claimed magnitude should have been subject to peer review.”
How do you know it hasn’t been peer reviewed, and won’t? The site was visited by a number of
archaeologists. And when the Nazareth farm excavation was completed, the ‫ﰝ‬ɻnal report
appeared 5 years later – presumably because the ‫ﰝ‬ɻnds had to be sorted, dated, considered, etc. I
would guess the same will occur here.
“I approach such issues with an attitude of: “If it be true then the truth will reveal itself.”
You and other Christians, assume it IS true then look for anything to back up your belief.
This is what faith is all about.”
It is interesting you say this, because, as I show in my response to your comment on The Jesus
myth wars heat up, I am basing my view on the consensus of scholars, and you are basing your
criticism of that view on the writings of one non-scholar.
Perhaps you can tell me why you conclude you are being factual and I am exercising faith?
“You see how ambiguous this statement is? It leads the believer to assume that the Nazareth in
the Bible was around during the time of the character of Jesus.”
Archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre dated the house to before 67CE, for reasons given in the
Israel Antiquities Authority report. There were houses in Nazareth within 40 years of Jesus’ life.
How close do you think archaeology can get?
“And you did not indicate if you have read Rene Salm?
I promise it will be an eye opener. Whether you agree with his point of view or not, his research is
meticulous.”
You asked me that question elsewhere, and I answered it there. I have looked at his writings, and
I thought they were far from meticulous, quite misleading and biased – and it seems most
scholars agree. So the question remains, why are you basing all your views on a non-scholar
with a pre-conceived opinion to try to support rather than the consensus of many respected and
unbiased scholars?
Arkenaten says
30 May, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I am not basing “all your views on a non-scholar with a pre-conceived opinion to try to support
rather than the consensus of many respected and unbiased scholars?”
And the many respected and unbiased scholars are whom?

You have listed less than a handful.
And what evidence have you produced to suggest they are not biased? None, so far.
In fact, on one of your posts,you quote The Bishop of Durham. Do you honestly consider NT
Wright an unbiased scholar? Are you serious?
be that as it may. The facts as they stand re Nazareth are:

There is no evidence of continual habitation at the site.
There is no mention of the name Nazareth in the Old Testament.
Even Josephus fails to even acknowledge its existance and if it was the ‘city’ as claimed in Luke
then he surely would have, considering the town of Japha is so near, which he does mention.
Luke’s description is erroneous; and is at best a secondhand report. At worst he simply made it
up.
If one takes all available evidence into account then the Nazareth as described in the bible
simply did not exist.
unkleE says
31 May, 2012 at 3:22 am
G’day Akhenaten
“I am not basing “all your views on a non-scholar with a pre-conceived opinion to try to support
rather than the consensus of many respected and unbiased scholars?””
I have asked you before, but may have missed your answer. Which scholars have you read on the
Nazareth archaeology and the existence of Nazareth in the ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century?
“And the many respected and unbiased scholars are whom? You have listed less than a handful.”
In my comment on The Jesus myth wars heat up, I quoted 8 scholars, some of them very
respected ones, who accept that ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century Nazareth existed – that took me about 15 minutes
searching. You have quoted one non-scholar who thinks otherwise. How many more bona ‫ﰝ‬ɻde
scholars do you need before you will accept that Salm is rightly not accepted by his peers (well
they are not actually his peers because he has no real quali‫ﰝ‬ɻcations that I can ‫ﰝ‬ɻnd)? Tell me the
number you want, and if it’s reasonable, I’ll dig them out.
“And what evidence have you produced to suggest they are not biased? None, so far.”
Akhenaten, this is getting desperate and a little nasty. The scholars I quote are mostly (if not all)
at established universities or authorities, they have recognised quali‫ﰝ‬ɻcations, they publish in
peer reviewed journals, etc. Are you suggesting they are biased, and your one non-scholar (who I
cannot ‫ﰝ‬ɻnd in any peer reviewed publication) is not?? Are you actually saying that all those
universities, all those peer reviewed journals, the whole academic system is corrupted and
biased? And this includes the several scholars I quoted who are not christian believers as well as
the ones who are?
Please tell me what you are actually saying, so we can examine it.
“If one takes all available evidence into account then the Nazareth as described in the bible
simply did not exist.”
All these are arguments from silence, and fail in the face of genuine archaeology that dates the
house to pre 67 CE. You have to ignore the solid evidence to reach your conclusion.
Arkenaten says
31 May, 2012 at 9:06 am
There has been no added evidence to have been conclusively veri‫ﰝ‬ɻed as being from the time that
the character of Jesus was supposed to have existed since Bagatti conducted his archaeological
digs. None. Therefore, all the quali‫ﰝ‬ɻed experts that you like to throw up to discredit Salm have no
more evidence to work with than he has.
Also, I am unaware of any papers written by your tenured experts corroborating such evidence,
either. None of the
Carbon dating of the uncovered artifacts has proved anything re: dating Nazareth to the time of
Jesus. In fact the evidence leans against rather than for.
It is Bagatti’s interpretation of what he found that Salm disputed, on reasonable grounds too, I
might add. And if you read his work,rather than just peruse those who might wish to vilify his
‫ﰝ‬ɻndings, you will see this.
Where is the peer reviewed evidence that corroborates the archaelogical claim that dates this
house to pre 67ce. Please point me to a link, other than the original press release.
unkleE says
2 June, 2012 at 1:59 am
Akhenaten, I have said before that I think this is ceasing to be a discussion and has become two
people talking past each other. I ‫ﰝ‬ɻnd your position confusing and contradictory, so I wonder if
you could clarify a few matters please:
1. Have you or Rene Salm any quali‫ﰝ‬ɻcations relevant to the interpretation of archaeological sites
in Israel, or any experience in excavating them? Do you think such quali‫ﰝ‬ɻcations or experience
are helpful or necessary in drawing conclusions? Do you believe that peer review is a helpful, or
even necessary process of determining conclusions?
2. How many bona ‫ﰝ‬ɻde scholars would you need to contradict Salm’s conclusions before you will
accept that he is mistaken, or is there no number who will make a difference to your current
view?
3. You have inferred that most scholars are ‘theologically’ biased. Is this your actual view? Does
this include the several scholars I quoted who are not christian believers as well as the ones who
are? Are you actually saying that all those universities, all those peer reviewed journals, the
whole academic system is corrupted and biased?
4. What artefacts from an allegedly ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century Jewish house do you think should be carbon
dated as you suggest?
5. Do you accept the statement by Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre that: “Based on other
excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of
the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans
in 67 CE”? How much closer to the date of Jesus’ life (approx 5 BCE – 30 CE) would the dating
need to go before you would be willing to accept that Nazareth existed in Jesus’ day? What
evidence do you have to suggest that it didn’t exist in the period 5 BCE – 30 CE, but was
established between then and 67 CE?
6. You mention that Nazareth is not mentioned by Josephus. How many settlements of its
apparent size (300-500 people) existed in Galilee and Judea at the time, and how many of them
are mentioned in Josephus?
Thank you.
Arkenaten says
2 June, 2012 at 4:07 pm
1. Have you or Rene Salm any quali‫ﰝ‬ɻcations relevant to the interpretation of archaeological sites
in Israel, or any experience in excavating them? Me, No. Salm. I do not know.
2. Do you think such quali‫ﰝ‬ɻcations or experience are helpful or necessary in drawing
conclusions? Helpful, maybe. Necessary. No.
3. Do you believe that peer review is a helpful, or even necessary process of determining
conclusions? Yes, and Yes.
4. How many bona ‫ﰝ‬ɻde scholars would you need to contradict Salm’s conclusions before you will
accept that he is mistaken, or is there no number who will make a difference to your current
view? He has not been shown to be mistaken. This is a fallacious statement. In fact, much of the
core evidence he has questioned forced a 22 page amendment. Would you care to provide a list
of all these bona ‫ﰝ‬ɻde scholars that have, in fact, contradicted Salm’s conclusions?
5. You have inferred that most scholars are ‘theologically’ biased. Is this your actual view? Does
this include the several scholars I quoted who are not Christian believers as well as the ones who
are? Are you actually saying that all those universities, all those peer reviewed journals, the
whole academic system is corrupted and biased? Every Christian scholar will inevitably show
bias to some degree. Look at yourself, for instance? It is unavoidable otherwise they would not be
Christian. The Christian academic system is not all corrupt; this would suggest every individual
is complicit. I would certainly state that there are huge vested interests at stake and every
archaeological investigation that had vested Christian interests will do its utmost to ensure
whatever is reported does not compromise or overtly jeopardise the Christian standpoint.
5. What artefacts from an allegedly ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century Jewish house do you think should be carbon
dated as you suggest? This is academic now isn’t it? The excavation site was quickly covered
over (by a religious tourist venue) making further digging impossible.
6. Do you accept the statement by Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre that: “Based on other
excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of
the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans
in 67 CE”? Has her assertion been veri‫ﰝ‬ɻed by any other archaeologists that have no vested
interest in the dig? Not af‫ﰝ‬ɻliated to the Church or the IAA.
7. How much closer to the date of Jesus’ life (approx 5 BCE – 30 CE) would the dating need to go
before you would be willing to accept that Nazareth existed in Jesus’ day? The irony is that the
dates are, in fact, almost irrelevant, as the site does not conform to the biblical description, thus
making the bible wrong or… (well you ‫ﰝ‬ɻgure it out) and aside from the house (which no evidence
has been put forward to corroborate a date) there is no evidence to suggest the current site of
Nazareth existed at all until it was named by Christians.
8. What evidence do you have to suggest that it didn’t exist in the period 5 BCE – 30 CE, but was
established between then and 67 CE? I have no evidence at all as I am not an archaeologist. But
then, no archaeologist has evidence to suggest it existed in the period 5BCE – 30 CE either. This
is the whole point, isn’t it?
8. You mention that Nazareth is not mentioned by Josephus. How many settlements of its
apparent size (300-500 people) existed in Galilee and Judea at the time, and how many of them
are mentioned in Josephus Where do arrive at the ‫ﰝ‬ɻgure of 300-500 people? At one stage the
‫ﰝ‬ɻgure was estimated in the thousands. Again, you are assuming Nazareth existed. So I would
ask, what expert provided these numbers and based on what evidence was this ‫ﰝ‬ɻgure arrived at?
Thank you
unkleE says
3 June, 2012 at 1:15 am
Thanks for your answers. They con‫ﰝ‬ɻrm that further discussion would be pointless. Discussion
can only take place where there is some agreement on ground rules, and we have none.
1. You think that your and Salm’s lack of study, knowledge, experience and ability in ancient
languages and idiom, archaeological ‫ﰝ‬ɻnds, documents, history, culture, etc, are no barrier to
making judgments about the matters we are discussing. I don’t know how you can think that, but
you do.
2. You have alleged that thousands of scholars at hundreds of universities have “vested Christian
interests” and are part of a “Christian academic system”, and are therefore not to be trusted. You
apparently think this even of the many atheist, agnostic and Jewish scholars in the ‫ﰝ‬ɻeld,
including the atheists & agnostics I quote most often (EP Sanders, M Grant & B Ehrman). It also
includes a Jewish archaeologist working for the Jewish state. Yet, although you make much of
the paucity of archaeological evidence, you offer no evidence for this huge conspiracy beyond
the fact that the scholars’ conclusions are contrary to what you think. These are amazing,
unsupported, allegations.
3. You accuse christian scholars of having biases while assuming that you and Salm have none.
This ignores the fact that many scholars are not christians (so why are they so ‘biased’ as to
come to the same conclusions?) and assumes that the academic peer review system which you
say you support has totally failed. You apparently see no inconsistency in this.
4. You draw conclusions about whether Nazareth should be mentioned by Josephus but you
don’t know how many similarly-sized villages there were in Galilee and Judea, not how many of
them Josephus mentioned, so you have no basis for estimating the probability that Josephus
would mention it. Again, you don’t see any inconsistency in drawing conclusions without data.
I think contrary to you on those four basic questions (as well as many others). I believe there are
enough checks and balances in the academic system and enough non-christan scholars, to keep
it mostly fair and trustworthy. I think we must start from the views of scholars and then draw
our own conclusions from them.
So we have no common basis for any discussion, and I will therefore not proceed further. I thank
you for your interest. At least your comments, especially your last set of answers, illustrate the
points I was writing about. Best wishes.
Arkenaten says
3 June, 2012 at 2:20 pm
No problem. People treated Albright with similar respect and his conclusions were eventually
shown to be 䔳씁awed and biased.
Your questions were somewhat loaded towards distilling the answer you were searching in the
‫ﰝ‬ɻrst place, ergo, any opinion or acamdemic submission from any quali‫ﰝ‬ɻed individual
should automatically carry more weight than an amateur in a similar ‫ﰝ‬ɻeld.
This is the type of blind acceptance that de‫ﰝ‬ɻnes religion in the ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst place; which is what this is
truly all about, is it not?
It still does not change the fact that Salm’s challenge to (in this case primarily biblical acadamia)
is valid; that they have not responded honestly to his challenge and that the questions
pertaining to Nazareth remain unanswered.
And now that Alexandra and the IAA have covered up the site will, for the forseeable future,
remain so.
That you choose to accept the obvious bias as presented by the representatives of your faith
illustrates that your faith cannot withstand serious challenge; even if the challenge comes from
an ‘unquali‫ﰝ‬ɻed’ amateur.
There is a lot of weight to the phrase, Ignorance is bliss.
May you remain in such a blissful state.
Arkenaten says
4 June, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Maybe this approach will prick your curiosity yto delve a little deeper?
An issue that has not been addresed, is where did the notion of a city, town, or village named
Nazareth come from?
There is no mention of Nazareth in Jewish literature; Nazareth does not feature on the
archaeological record until it becomes established as place of Christian pilgrimage.
Origen knew of the gospel tale, but did not know where it was –yet he lived less than 50 kms
away.
So we are left with biblical references.
And this leads us to the etymology of the word. One would think that as the gospel writers
mention Nazareth they were aware of a town? This is not the case. They assumed that the word
Nazarene referred to one who came from Nazareth.
It didn’t; but referred to a sub-set of the Essenes.

You can research the rest yourself, I’m sure?
Mario Zamora says

11 July, 2012 at 5:07 am
It is so unique how the unbelievers won’t ever be satis‫ﰝ‬ɻed no matter what you tell them, show
them, or screamed at. Jesus was so Godly whenever he would speak in parables and explain that
those on the “outside” would not understand, see, or perceive, and would neither convert nor
their sins be forgiven by Him speaking like that, Mark 4:11-12. Well, today, nothing has changed,
when a house remains in a place like Nazareth, or human artifacts in a Bethlehem site, is more
than enough for His followers, yet it remains a parable for those on the “outside” of Jesus, my
Lord. Peace of Christ.
arkenaten says
11 July, 2012 at 5:22 pm
You have not the good manners to provide a pro‫ﰝ‬ɻle so I won’t dignify your silly comment with a
detailed response.
unkleE says
12 July, 2012 at 7:24 am
Akhenaten, you are welcome to post contrary opinions as much as you like, but please don’t
descend to insult, or I will remove your post.
arkenaten says
12 July, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Commentors who have no blog are little better than trolls.

If you feel that offended, then delete away. ;Tis your blog. No problem this side, I assure you.
Nazareth says
25 October, 2012 at 10:08 am
Nice response in return of this query with ‫ﰝ‬ɻrm arguments and

telling everything about that.
Ivan DeBaecke says

4 December, 2013 at 4:23 pm
What one chooses to believe does not have to be supported by facts, by the same token, what you
believe does not have to be supported by facts. This was clearly demonstrated by a TV show
done by Chris Matthews in Little Rock Arkansas, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, in which he
admitted to his affairs, and yet many in the audience chose not to believe him.
unkleE says
5 December, 2013 at 12:10 am
Hi Ivan, thanks for commenting. I agree with you that there is no compulsion to base belief on
facts, but I would prefer to. What about you?
Wade Thomson says

The obvious fact is there is not enough evidence at the moment to say whether there was a
Nazareth during Jesus’ time or not. I have one, of many, questions about Jesus being the Messiah
and that is Jesus commenting about proof that he was the Messiah, as stated in Matthew 12:40,
about like Jonah he would be in the ground for 3 days and 3 nights. No one knows for sure just
how long he was buried but it was much shorter than 3 days and 3 nights. He failed his own
prophecy and the Bible states too that any prophet failing a prophecy was a false prophet, which
means he could not be a Messiah. Where in the Old Testament does it state that a Messiah would
come and save humanity? What was the need; Original Sin is not referred to in the Old
Testament and since it came before the New Testament wouldn’t it refer to all those things
stated in the NT? Keeping the Sabbath, keeping the Laws, etc? God was very emphatic about
there being no other Gods, about not changing his mind etc.
unkleE says
Hi Wade, thanks for visiting and commenting. Unfortunately you misread the ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst bit – the
scholars say there is indeed enough archaeological evidence to say Nazareth was a small village
in Jesus’s day.
Regarding your question about Matthew 12:40 – it would indeed be a problem for someone who
thought the New Testament we read today was perfect and without any error, but that isn’t my
view, nor that of many scholars. The ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century Jews appeared to be very relaxed about
prophecy, and often re-applied, re-interpreted or changed prophecies around to explain what
they thought. If Matthew had seen this as a serious problem, I don’t suppose he would have
recorded it. My guess is that Jesus was buried for parts of three separate days, and that was
enough for Matthew. Besides, why get hung up on the detail when something so amazing as
resurrection, and the prediction of resurrection is being discussed?
I think the OT prophecies of the Messiah related to a new king in the line of David coming to
restore the kingdom of Israel. We can see that as including saving humanity, but it is far bigger
than that. I agree with you that original is not an OT concept (and as it is often expressed,
perhaps not a NT concept either).
I’d be interested to hear a little more of what you think about all that.
randomengineer says
I think you are somewhat missing the point of the critics. The evidence suggests that the site of
nazareth was used in antiquity and was likely to be very lightly inhabited if at all during 30 BCE
to 50 CE. In other words there *could* have been a tiny hamlet sited there. But it wasn’t a town,
not as the notion of “town” is understood, until much later. The critics point out via examination
roman and other sources that nazareth is not a known place name in that era, even by the people
in charge of governing the area. Certainly the people in charge of governing are not incompetent
enough to not know their jobs.
Now that this is out of the way, we can move to the actual point. Assuming that jesus existed and
was the well known miracle working and highly regarded superstar hero claimed in scriptures,
nazareth ought to have been really really really well known to the governors; it ought to have
been a booming town. And yet it doesn’t really appear in roman records until the 2nd century CE.
Add to this the countless other odd details such as roman maps of the area not referencing the
sea of galilee as such, geographic incongruities in the accounts given by the four gospels, and
what you have looks like these were all written after the fact.
I think that when you can mount an argument that doesn’t demolish straw men but instead
speaks to what the critics are actually saying, people like me will be happy to give your view
more leeway. Until then, your arguments here are very much in the vein of “god of the gaps”
where you hide behind the gaps in knowledge rather than illuminate these gaps. And that ain’t
scienti‫ﰝ‬ɻc.
unkleE says
Hi, thanks for visiting and commenting. I certainly have tried to engage with the points made by
critics, but I’m happy to address the ones you raise.
” there *could* have been a tiny hamlet sited there. But it wasn’t a town, not as the notion of
“town” is understood, until much later”
The scholars I have read suggest that Nazareth was a hamlet or village, with population of
maybe a few hundred. I don’t recall anyone claiming much larger than this, certainly not a large
town.
The evidence for this is quite good. Archaeology has found agricultural terraces and structures,
tombs, and a house. In these locations they have found coins, pottery and a lamp, some of which
date to the early Roman period (‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century BCE and ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst century CE). The archaeologists also
found a pit hewn out of stone with a concealed entrance, which they believe was constructed as
protection during the Jewish revolt of 67 CE.
This is evidence of a village around the time of Jesus, enough to convince most historians. The
late Maurice Casey wrote: “there does not seem to be any serious doubt among competent
investigators that some ‫ﰝ‬ɻnds are of suf‫ﰝ‬ɻciently early date …. which show that there was some
sort of settlement …”
“Assuming that jesus existed and was the well known miracle working and highly regarded
superstar hero claimed in scriptures, nazareth ought to have been really really really well known
to the governors; it ought to have been a booming town.”
On what basis do you say this? Jesus was not a “highly regarded superstar” except among his
followers, who were a small minority until several centuries later. And even if he was, why would
that make Nazareth signi‫ﰝ‬ɻcant? It was a small village of little consequence.
Can you explain why you think otherwise?
“what you have looks like these were all written after the fact”
Of course they were written after the fact. They could hardly have been written at the time. They
were clearly based on eye-witness accounts and perhaps some written records, but not compiled
until some time later. But I can’t see how this throws into doubt the existence of Nazareth. Can
you explain this a little more also please?
Searchengineguy says
15 January, 2016 at 10:42 pm
I’ve read through all this, and I really think Arkenaten nailed it with his comment “a discovery of
this claimed magnitude should have been subject to peer review. It was not, and all mention of
the discovery was removed from the of‫ﰝ‬ɻcial website shortly after the single press release. The
area was covered and built over so now, no independant veri‫ﰝ‬ɻcation is possible.”
Christians had their chance to make the site an unequivocal statement of fact, but instead buried
their precious evidence. How convenient. The missing “empty tomb” is another nail in the cof‫ﰝ‬ɻn
for xtians. Where is it? Everybody just forgot about it? No Jesus bones, so just another hole in the
ground? Pfft!
unkleE says
16 January, 2016 at 2:51 am
Hi Searchengineguy, thanks for visiting my blog and reading through this post and the
discussion. But I wonder if you did any fact-checking before you commented. For I think there
are a few pieces of information you may ‫ﰝ‬ɻnd interesting.
1. The remains of two houses have been discovered in Nazareth. The ‫ﰝ‬ɻrst was investigated by
archaeologists in the 19th century, but it isn’t true to say that it is impossible to verify the details,
or that nothing has been submitted for peer review. For Ken Dark of Reading University began
new excavations there in 2006, and published some of his results in 2012 in a reputable academic
journal. I wrote this up a year ago (Nazareth – the evidence mounts), and you can ‫ﰝ‬ɻnd there links
to this publication. Dark has recently written an article on the excavations in the Biblical
Archaeological Review.
2. A second house was excavated in 2009 by the Israel Antiquities Authority. I don’t think those
excavations have been published in an academic journal, but the site was certainly not hastily
covered up, as the photos in that reference show.
3. None of this has anything to do with Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, as you seem to
suggest, which took place in Jerusalem, which is about 120 km to the south.
I can understand how it may have looked to you if you assumed that Arkenaten’s “facts” were
correct, but I guess this shows we should check the latest facts, even if the person is a friend or
even a relative!
Thanks.
Trackbacks
Nazareth re-visited says:

25 August, 2012 at 11:57 am
[…] A few months ago, I wrote about ‫ﰝ‬ɻnds that establish, contrary to the views of some sceptics, that
Nazareth did indeed exist in Jesus day – as a small agricultural village of (probably) just a few hundred
inhabitants (Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?). […]
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required ‫ﰝ‬ɻelds are marked *
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
POST COMMENT
Check here to Subscribe to noti‫ﰝ‬ɻcations for new posts
Welcome
This website explores ideas about God, religion,
right & wrong and happiness. If you're interested,
please join in.
Like this website on Facebook

Is there a God?
Like Page 188 likes
Follow this blog

Get email noti‫ﰝ‬ɻcation of new posts.
Your email:
Enter email address...
SUBSCRIBE
You can unsubscribe here.
RSS Feed
Get updates every post via a RSS Feed. Don't
understand feeds? Check here.
Topics to explore
About Archaeology Arguments Atheism
Belief Bible Blogging Books
Change the world Chocolate Christianity
Climate change Cosmology Doubtful ideas
Ethics Evidence Evil FairTrade Faith
False arguments Fun God Good things
Happiness Healing History Jesus Justice
Life Mind Miracles? Music NewTestament
People
http://www.isthereagod.info/blog/belief/didbethlehemandnazarethexistinjesusday/
Philosophy 20/21
People PeterSinger Philosophy Protest

Reason Religion Science
Social Justice society Western world
What is human? World
HOME ABOUT IBELIEVE CONTACT PRIVACY

THE WAY?
COMMENT SITEMAP My other blog
Copyright ©2016, unkleE, based on Minimum Pro theme & Genesis Framework · Page last updated: 22 February 2015 ·
Log in

Did Bethlehem and Nazareth Exist in Jesus Day

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Did Bethlehem and Nazareth Exist in Jesus Day

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/8/2016 Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?

Reliable information for those asking life's big questions

HOME IS THERE LIFE CLUES BELIEF CHANGE WISDOM BLOG

Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?

But three years later the situation has changed.

Recently the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that

This shows the existence of town named Bethlehem seven

Photos from Israel Antiquities Authority

« The Jesus myth wars heat up Ethical chocolate update »

G’day Akhenaten, thanks for reading my blog.

What a leap of faith!

And the many respected and unbiased scholars are whom?

be that as it may. The facts as they stand re Nazareth are:

the ones who are?

It didn’t; but referred to a sub-set of the Essenes.

Mario Zamora says

Commentors who have no blog are little better than trolls.

Nice response in return of this query with ‫ﰝ‬ɻrm arguments and

Ivan DeBaecke says

Wade Thomson says

Can you explain why you think otherwise?

Nazareth re-visited says:

Check here to Subscribe to noti‫ﰝ‬ɻcations for new posts

Like this website on Facebook

Follow this blog

Enter email address...

You can unsubscribe here.

People PeterSinger Philosophy Protest

HOME ABOUT IBELIEVE CONTACT PRIVACY

You might also like