[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nazareth Tombs
Thomas M.Simms wrote:
> Thank you. This is simple, plain information that disproves my thesis
> that Nazareth came late. It doesn't kill the Nazarean argument but
> it does strengthen it either. That information has been around longer than
> I have in some instances, just...
> Curious it was not better known. Even Schonfield missed it by my reading
> of him. Anyone reading contra let me know.
> Thanks Jack.
That the site of Nazareth has been occupied since the Middle Bronze Age
has been known for quite some time. Also see Revue Biblique 70, 1963, p.563; 1965,
547. Artifacts to the calcholithic demonstrate the habitability of the hill
given it's water supply. Given the advantages of the arable surrounding land,
the water supply, etc...I cannot see how it would NOT have been a viable village
in the 1st century. I accept that the historical Jesus lived in Nazareth and had
a pretty good business going making yokes and plows. Wonder what he charged?
According to ancient tradition, his were the best. (g)