[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, dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us 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.
>Dave Washburn
>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######