[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nazoreth vs. Nazorean
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:48:56 -7, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>> I have posted this slightly edited comment on another list. My sources essen-
>> tially are Hugh Schonfield, Ian Wilson and _Biblical Archaeology Review_:
>> 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.
>> Am I wrong? Have I missed something? Should I ask another list?
>There is a stone inscription in the Louvre called the Nazareth
>Decree, apparently set up by order of Claudius Caesar at Nazareth,
>that dates from about A.D. 50 that has to do with disturbing graves
>and tombs near the town. Such a topic would suggest that the town
>had been established for some time, so that likely pushes the
>existence of the town back at least to the turn of the era.
>I've never had an original thought in my life,
>so this opinion must be someone else's fault.
Now that's a piece of news that really muddies the water especially
since the textual argument now holds even moreso with Wagener's note.
Both sides are true, I guess.
Tom Simms, the waffler######