[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Nazoreth vs. Nazorean

On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:07:11 -0600, jpman@accesscomm.net writes:
>Thomas M.Simms wrote:
>>    Re: Nazareth:  There is NO epigraphic evidence before 3rd Century CE!  The
>>    textual evidences from the manuscripts support the attribution (Jesus the
>>    Nazorean) I've given.  The King James Redactors were wrong.
>>    Now SHOW me any epigraphic evidence for a village called Nazareth circa the
>>    turn of the Era.  The most one can show is some kind of villa or farm and
>>    NO written text connected with it.
>   You are correct on the epigraphic attestation of Nazareth.  The earliest
>that I can recall is the Caesarean inscription on priestly courses c. 300 CE. 
>The strongest evidence for Nazareth as a settlement during the Roman period are
>the tombs, most of the kokim type and four of the "rolling stone" type no later
>then 70 C.E.

    When were these discovered and where are they with respect to the present
    community?  Were they possibly a family group part of an estate?

Tom Simms
>Jack Kilmon