Nazareth- Existed In The First Century? Sidebar Discussion

[Storm]

SteveBennett in post #27 replied to Ficino with the following statement:

 

"As for your rejecting Luke's biography of Jesus as a credible source, I am deeply incredulous as to how you came to such a conclusion. Especially since, by measure of standard dating methodology, one would have to place his biography somewhere between 58-64 A.D.-- within the lifetime's of those who walked with Jesus."

 

My response to this is:

You clearly have not done research in understanding that the average life expectancy of someone who lived in Jesus' time is only 20 - 35 years of age, as provided by evidence in this link (see page 1719 left column second paragraph)

The likelihood that the author(s) of Luke actually walked with Jesus on the earth, or interviewed someone who did, is very minimal. Yes there were a few people who may have lived to fuller lives, but then you run into the whole the majority of the people who lived in that era were also uneducated and unable to write such things, only pass them along as stories, which at a later date would be able to be written down, which brings into play hearsay and lack of actual eyewitness accounts of what actually happened (if it actually did happen). Too many statistically significant things work against there being an actual literal eyewitness telling of Jesus' life on this earth. With that discrepancy, it sure is difficult for me to take it as truthful and accurate.

[mymistake]

I seriously doubt that Luke was written during the first century.  It would definitely be after Mark which wasn't written until after the Jewish Roman war.  But the first clue that the Luke "biography" should be rejected as a credible source is in the first chapter when Luke introduces mythical characters.  Verse 1:6 tells us God's opinion.  Did Luke interview God?  And in verse 11 we get angels and Holy ghosts.  Not long after that we get menopausal women who are pregnant.  And sure enough we wind up with unwed teenage pregnant virgins.   Luke chapter 2 introduces a census that never happened.  And it was conducted in a way such things were not done.  And Luke gets the local governors wrong.  As we read chapter 3 Luke gives us a genealogy that goes all the way back to Adam the son of God.

 

Luke is self refuting.  Mr. Bennett pretends to be an academic but doesn't apply critical thinking to his religion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Not to mention that Luke places the birth of jesus during the reign of King Herod, while Quirinius was governor of Syria.  The problem with this is that Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until 6CE.  I've heard of prolonged births before; but if Mary was in labor for 10 years, then that was much more miraculous than the immaculate conception.

[Ravenstar]

There is evidence of pre-christian.. actually pre-historic cult activity in the area of the village of Nazareth.

 

http://archive.archaeology.org/0311/newsbriefs/nazareth.html

 

Archaeological research has revealed that a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles (3.2 km) from current Nazareth, dates back roughly 9000 years to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era.^[36] The remains of some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge horizontal headstone structures, some of which consisted of up to 3 tons of locally produced white plaster. Decorated human skulls uncovered there have led archaeologists to identify Kfar HaHoresh as a major cult centre in that era.^[37]

 

In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approximately 100 m × 150 m (328.08 ft × 492.13 ft) on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology", carried out extensive excavation of this "Venerated Area" from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or EarlyRoman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.

 

I think it is safe to say we can't KNOW if there was or wasn't a small settlement there during the time of the early 1st century. If there was it was likely pastoral, maybe nothing more than a few farms and homes. Very backwater… it wasn't a town in any way though, maybe more like a hamlet or small collection of farms - like a small Amish community if anything at all. There is no evidence of any kind of religious centre, or place for a priesthood.

 

The etymology for 'Nazareth' is also in question.. no one is really sure if it is Hebrew or Arabic, though there does seem to have been an Arab presence there from a long time back. But that's interesting too because some of the concepts attributed to Jesus seem more akin to pre-muslim Arabic ideas than Judaism. This is something I will have to look into more.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi guys, a procedural question: is this link going to be about Steve Bennett's claim that Luke was written between 58 and 64 CE? Or is it going to be about more stuff re Nazareth?

 

As initiator of the Nazareth thread, I ask that contributions about Nazareth be posted on the original thread. It would be great to revisit the dating of Luke. Is there a way perhaps to re-entitle this thread so people know it's about the date of Luke? That is the intended topic of this thread, right, Storm?

[Ravenstar]

sorry

[♦ ficino ♦]

No prob, great info, Ravenstar - as always! I'm just hoping people won't get confused and that they won't ignore this thread, which promises to be interesting if we get a good discussion going on the dating of Luke/Acts.

 

As to that topic, I am not a NT expert. I'll throw out, though, that 58-64 CE is not a date of Luke arrived at by "standard dating methodology," as SteveBennett says that it is. It is a conclusion inferred from certain assumptions:

 

-- that the author of Luke and Acts was the same person (OK, I'm not contesting that)

-- that this author accompanied Paul on his purported journeys (cf. "we" verses in Acts)

-- that Peter and Paul were martyred in 64 CE

-- that Acts was written before this date because it does not mention what one might think would be glorious martyrdom stories

-- that Luke predates Acts (cf. prelude to Acts, which seems to mention Luke)

-- that neither work underwent significant redaction

 

therefore, Luke predates 64.

 

There are many problems with such an early date of Acts. Plus, problems that people have already raised re Luke.

[Storm]

My apologies, ficino. I cannot change the title of the thread, however, if a mod would be inclined to do so, I would gladly change the title to something else.

[Ravenstar]

But doesn't Luke mention the destruction of the Temple?  Which was 70AD?  I'm not that up on the NT either, not in that kind of detail. Or was that just a lucky guess considering the political climate of the day and not an 'account' of an event.

[♦ ficino ♦]

But doesn't Luke mention the destruction of the Temple?  Which was 70AD?  I'm not that up on the NT either, not in that kind of detail. Or was that just a lucky guess considering the political climate of the day and not an 'account' of an event.

This is one of the reasons why critical scholars usually date the gospels post-70, except famously for Bishop Robinson over a generation ago. Like SteveBennett, evangelicals usually say that these references are accurate records of prophecies actually enunciated by Jesus, and they accuse other scholars of bringing in naturalistic assumptions. They think historical method veers into god-denying assumptions when it treats prophecies that are portrayed as voiced before the event as though they are really "vaticinia ex eventu" concocted, or at least, inserted into the text by the author after the event.