Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Hellenist Material in Thomas

Expand Messages
  • BitsyCat1@aol.com
    ... Though technically this is off topic, I ll respond this once then end the thread Only in relation the Hellenistic influence of The area. Interesting, but
    Message 1 of 31 , Jul 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/28/07 12:20:11 PM, cobby@... writes:


      > John ...
      >
      > ... could you elaborate a bit. There seems to be two schools of
      > thought on this, one suggesting that Nazareth never existed in Jesus'
      > time, and that it was only "discovered" under questionable
      > circumstances by Helena, mother of Constantine the Great 300 or so
      > years after Jesus' death, and yet its opposite which clings to
      > other "proofs" suggesting that Nazareth was a clearly defined village
      > existent when Jesus was born. The outcrop of the argument is that the
      > reference by Matt 2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene." in the NT may
      > or may not refer to Jesus having had an Essenes persuasion of values
      > (not otherwise mentioned therein) versus the actual placename of
      > Nazareth.
      >
      > Popular references to the agruments for and against can be found at:
      >
      Though technically this is off topic, I'll respond this once then end the thread Only in relation the Hellenistic influence of The area.


      Interesting, but recent archeological finds not only place Nazareth (On the
      heights) near Sephorris, but also place a Roman Bath That was present in the
      first century there.
      It was discovered underneath and Ottoman bath (which was much later) ,
      however due to the fact that these properties have been held for as long as 100
      years or more by the same families. Archeology is only done when these properties change hands.

      In this case it was when a stall (Over the Ottoman Bath was being sold
      which sold artifact s and souvenirs for the so called Well of Mary.
      ( http://www.biblewalks.com/Photos/nazareth_google.jpg)
      There was a conflict between the location of the Well between the Two main
      Holders Greek orthodox and Catholic or properties.( As to the exact location)
      So the investigation was actually concerning the well.
      There underneath was the Roman bath which dates back to the first century
      and was jokingly called the Bath of Jesus (When it was announced)
      Nevertheless it is significant in causing a reassessment of both Was
      Nazareth there, but also whether it was merely a village or a garrisoned outpost.

      I normally dont post archeological information to list due to relevance,
      however the bath of this size suggests that there was a" Roman Garrison" at
      present site of Nazareth atthe time of Yeshua bar Yosefs projected
      birth.and at the time and place called for.

      And aerial photo of the area overlooking the City of Sepphoris and well as
      the plains to the other side as well as maps of the Roman roads show why this
      is highly likely.(Perhaps a necessity for any Roman presence)

      It would appear not only that Nazareth was present but that it was
      Garrisoned by Rome. Not the sleepy backwater many suggest that it was in the tra
      ditional mythology.

      Of course one thing many forget about the names in Judea, Galilee was that after the revolt, Hadrian renamed every city just as he renamed Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina( Israel to Palestinia) and Sephorris voluntarily renamed itself

      quote

      However after Herod's death the city was burned during a conflict of local leaders. Herod's son, Herod Antipas, rebuilt the city. Sometime afterwards, Zippori's population became predominantly Jewish. Even so, the city showed its remaining loyalty to the Roman rule by renaming itself during the reign of Hadrian as Diocaesarea, a reference to Zeus and Caesar.


      This may have led to some confusion over the fact that it was present or not present. In particular on Roman maps from that time forth. Many cities would disappear from the records, when they dont exist on paper.

      Hadrian proceeded to rename the entire Iudaea Province to Syria Palaestina after the Biblical Philistines in an attempt to thwart future rebellion and to de-Judaize Judea

      Also Even Sephorris was renamed bearing Zipporis* Which served as a refuge for Jewish Teacher fleeing the revolt under Bar koppa.
      and NAzareth is mentioned in those accounts as well,

      What does Sepphoris have to do with NAzareth,?..I'd say One owes its
      importance to the other.

      Sepphoris, the ornament of all Galilee", obviously a flattering term but whether he meant that the city was strong or beautiful is unsure.

      The city was named after the Hebrew word for bird, 'zippor', because it seems to soar from its position on top of a hill. King Herod liked its strategic position and made it his capital, when he was governor of Galilee in the beginning of his career.

      However after Herod's death the city was burned during a conflict of local leaders. Herod's son, Herod Antipas, rebuilt the city. Sometime afterwards, Zippori's population became predominantly Jewish.

      Also on the coins of the time for the area,( Sepphoris)

      The inscription reads "In the time of Vespasian, City of Peace (Eirenopolis), Neronias Sepphoris."

      So we are discussing names in an area that had numerous names for the exact same locations.
      IN any case.

      I believe the name argument is a red herring, in an area whose may have had 1) A local name 2) A Hebrew and/or Aramaic name 3) and official Roman name which by order replaced the old name.4) and honorary name

      Is which name that is used for the settlement really relevant?

      When Archeology shows the existence of a settlement Which existed in the 1st and 2nd century and before


      From the existing Maps Roman roads wound right under Nazareth and it held the heights on one side and Sepphoris on the other.

      John Dominic Crosson , also suggests in excavating Jesus that Nazareth quote

      Early Roman Period (mid-first century B.C.E. to first century C.E.). Herod the Great's Roman-sponsored kingdom building (37-4 B.C.E.) dominates this layer across the Jewish homeland, sometimes called the "Herodian Period." His son Herod Antipas urbanized Galilee (4 B.C.E.-39 C.E.) and introduced Greco-Roman urban architecture there with the building of Sepphoris and Tiberias. But there and elsewhere Jewish self-expression in domestic life is common and widespread. Towns and villages share a simple architecture, but well-fired pottery was being produced at several kilns. Some evidence of trade...

      It is clear that in the 1st century, The Settlement of Nazareth existed due to its location near Sepphoris/Zipporis,as well as its location near the Roman roads( And step roads)

      (I believe that Network is "on line")that is the maps of Roman roads in the first century. )

      It would be very odd of the Romans not to take and hold the heights above a key road (Very UN roman)

      see map http://www.centuryone.org/sepphoris.html

      In the period where sepphoris was constructed and Roman occupation, as well as Roman roads, well may have actually established Nazareth as an important place. Due to its proximity to Sepphoris

      It would appear that it not only existed, but it may have been far more cosmopolitan than previously believed in the first century

      With thanks I shall end this thread (Archeology) As it is only related to this particular question.
      Obviously Sepphoris a Greek style city with its history would have dominated the surrounding area and also the workers that lived nearby.
      In the nearby city or Settlement of NAzareth

      Regards,
      John Moon
      Springfield Tenn 37172
    • Ron McCann
      Thanks, Frank. Clearly, I totally misunderstood you and the point you were making in your post, and further confused the references to James the son of
      Message 31 of 31 , Aug 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Frank.

        Clearly, I totally misunderstood you and the point you were making in your post, and further confused the references to James the son of Alphaeus and James the son of Zebedee. Can't keep track of so many durned Jameses! Creeping Alzheimers, no doubt.. (grin). My apologies.

        Ron
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: FMMCCOY@...
        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 2:47 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Hellenist Material in Thomas


        Ron McCann writes, "In closing, Frank. Just one more point on the
        Jerusalem Council, the leadership of James and your suggestions that it
        was James sons of Zebbedee, not James the Just that lead it. I remember
        now reading something you posted about that and recall shaking my head
        at the time. How do you square that with the fact that Acts 12 tells us
        that James Zebedee was killed by Herod at about the same time that Peter
        was arrested by him and made his miraculous escape from Prison-
        something that occurs much much earlier and earlier in the account than
        the Jerusalem Council events?"

        Ron, if you re-read what I said, you will realize that what I maintain
        is that, Luke wants us to believe, the James of the Jerusalem Council is
        James *the son of Alphaeus*. Luke nowhere, in either Luke or Acts, ever
        states that Jesus had a brother named James. He names two James in
        Acts--one the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Alphaeus. Since
        the son of Zebedee was dead by the time of this Council, Luke implies
        that the James of this Council is the son of Alphaeus. It is only by
        illegitimate importation of ideas from outside the conceptual universe
        of Luke-Acts that anyone can conclude that the James of this Council
        meeting is a brother of Jesus. In any event, IMO, Luke's account of the
        Council meeting, including the edict, is bogus. IMO, if such an edict
        had ever been issued, Paul would have said something about it because it
        directly impacted on the Gentiles under his jurisdiction.

        Ron, you have an interesting line of argumentation in the rest of your
        post. I will be responding to it, but only after giving it much
        thought.

        Frank McCoy
        2036 E. Magnolia Ave.
        St. Paul, MN 55119









































        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.