All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 17, 2023 - Skeptoid
17:18
Skeptoid #906: Unraveling the Myth of Nazareth

Did the village of Nazareth exist at the time of Jesus, making it possible for there to have been a Jesus of Nazareth? Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Did Nazareth Actually Exist 00:09:49
Today we have a question that probes the deepest fundamentals of Christianity.
It's a question that, if answered one way, lends credibility to the idea that the Bible is a literally true historical document.
And if answered the other way, it casts doubt on the entire story of Jesus.
This question is no less than whether the historical town of Nazareth ever actually existed.
And that's coming up right now on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's HyperFixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Unraveling the myth of Nazareth.
Welcome to the show that separates fact from fiction, science from pseudoscience, real history from fake history, and helps us all make better life decisions by knowing what's real and what's not.
Today we have a mystery that incites passionate opinions in some, to a degree that only religion can deliver.
The question of whether Nazareth, traditionally the town in which Jesus Christ was raised, actually existed at the time.
Obviously, this question would have enormous implications for those who consider the Bible to be a literally true historical document and for Christianity as a whole.
Back in episode number 666, we examined that weightiest of questions, the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Not just whether there might have been some dude rolling around named that and having followers, but an actual distinct individual named Jesus of Nazareth who was executed by Pontius Pilate.
At the risk of rekindling that particular firestorm, that episode's essential conclusion is that we don't know.
Neither side brings sufficient evidence.
But that was not a lightly made conclusion, and it's actually a lot more nuanced than that.
Go back and listen to that episode if you want the full story.
It is a question that is argued, typically with emotions running very high, generally by advocates in two groups, firebrand atheists and firebrand Christians, both of whom have an axe to grind, and many of whom wear it as their whole identity.
Today's question is really just a proxy for that one.
If Nazareth existed, it supports the claim of the authenticity of Jesus.
If it did not, it supports the claim that Jesus was fictional.
But we want to take it today as a separate question to be investigated and answered free of any baggage or emotions or axes to grind.
And so we must first define it.
Exactly, what are we asking?
Because Nazareth is, today, a perfectly real city and has been for a very long time.
It is just where the Bible stories say it is.
It's in modern-day Israel.
It's a city a bit shy of 100,000 people, 70% of whom are Muslim Arabs and 30% of whom are Christians.
It has almost no Jewish people at all and is often referred to as the Arab capital of Israel.
Nazareth is generally accepted as the town where Jesus was raised, and the Catholic Church maintains the Basilica of the Annunciation, built on the site where they traditionally believe the home of Mary Joseph and Jesus was located.
The city's accepted history goes back past Roman times, through the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, and the Stone Age, with undisputed archaeological evidence from all those periods.
None of this is in any meaningful dispute.
And so we might well be tempted to stop and ask, why are we even considering this question?
Nazareth is there.
It was there thousands of years before Jesus.
Kind of dumb to ask if it was there during the time of Jesus.
And this brings us to the crucial specific of the question we're asking.
Granted, people lived in and around that area in the Stone Age, the Iron Age, Roman times, whenever.
But if we can prove that whatever settlement may have existed had not yet been named Nazareth, then we have grave implications for the historicity of the Bible.
This is why some pursue this question, and it gives us exactly the question we need to answer.
For it turns out there is some reason to doubt the settlement was called Nazareth at the time of Jesus, which would make it hard for there to have been a Jesus of Nazareth.
There is an absence of evidence that the settlement was named Nazareth prior to the early 4th century, which is when we have the earliest non-scriptural reference to it.
This came from Eusebius, an early chronicler of church history.
In one of his writings, he asserted that an earlier chronicler, Sextus Julius Africanus, who lived around the year 200 CE, had said that people from Nazareth and Cochada, villages of Judea, had kept genealogical records.
That would be the earliest known mention of Nazareth, and it was written some 300 years after the death of Jesus.
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Just because we don't have any earlier writings calling the town Nazareth doesn't mean it wasn't named that.
A particularly keen absence of evidence is in the writings of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish general from Galilee, the region of Israel where Nazareth is, who was later granted Roman citizenship and became an important author and historian of the region.
Josephus was born just about the time Jesus died and traveled all over as a general.
In his books, he mentions a total of 45 city names in Galilee, and Nazareth is not among them, prompting some to conclude it must not yet have existed with that name.
However, this needs some context.
Archaeology done in Nazareth does not support a large town having been there.
Nazareth would have been tiny, perhaps little more than a few houses, and could easily have escaped Josephus' chronicles.
Plenty of towns did.
By the time the Talmud was written, it mentioned 63 towns in Galilee, so there were plenty that Josephus skipped.
And not even the Talmud's larger list included Nazareth, even though its 4th century authorship post-dated the mention of Nazareth by Eusebius.
So since we know for a fact that Nazareth existed by name when the Talmud listed 63 towns in Galilee, and yet it wasn't included, it should be no surprise that it wasn't also included in Josephus's smaller list.
This does not logically support a conclusion that Nazareth didn't exist in Josephus' time.
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Malaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finished the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Was it really just a few houses so small it might have had no name at all?
No, archaeologists have found more than that.
The Nazareth Inscription Mystery 00:05:08
On the grounds of today's Nazareth Hospital is a 15-acre site on which have been found a wine press, agricultural terraces, remnants of three watchtowers, two olive-crushing stones, components of an irrigation system, and evidence for stone quarrying.
Pottery remnants have indicated continuous occupation from the Bronze Age to at least the 13th century.
Today called the Nazareth Farm, it is only 500 meters from the houses and tombs that have been found in modern Nazareth and that date to the time of Jesus.
The fact that agriculture was happening and that people were living and being buried there may guide your opinion on whether such a settlement was likely to have a name.
No discussion of this topic would be complete without an examination of a marble tablet known as the Nazareth Inscription.
This tablet, measuring 61 centimeters tall and 38 centimeters wide, has 14 carved lines of text in Greek.
It is, or it purports to be, an edict from an unnamed Caesar prohibiting grave robbing.
It orders that anyone destroying a grave or a tomb be charged as a grave robber and sentenced to capital punishment.
It became known to the rest of the world in 1878 when it was acquired in Nazareth by Wilhelm Frona, the curator for the Louvre in Paris.
He described it in his manuscript inventory as marble slab sent from Nazareth in 1878.
The Nazareth inscription has been claimed as evidence by both sides in the Nazareth debate.
Supporters of a historical Nazareth claim the tablet was discovered in Nazareth and is believed to come from the time of Christ, and even claim that the edict was probably issued as a response to the disappearance of Christ's body from the tomb, likely a Roman ploy to dismiss Christ's miraculous resurrection as merely a case of grave robbing.
Opponents of a historical Nazareth point to the fact that nothing in the tablet references Nazareth or Christ or is even dated.
If Caesar had been inclined to issue a special edict about grave robbing, it would scarcely have been likely to be in response to the execution of a minor criminal in an unimportant land far away, and much more likely in response to something of importance to Romans.
One highly plausible hypothesis is that the edict was issued by Claudius Caesar Augustus in response to the desecration of the tomb of Nicias, ruler of the Greek island Kos.
And we do know from isotopic analysis of the marble performed in 2020 that the tablet did come from Kos if true, then why would Frona have said that the tablet came from Nazareth?
Well, he didn't.
He said only that it was shipped from Nazareth.
In 1878, Nazareth was a significant antiquities market, and it seems to be the place that Frona bought it and shipped it to Paris.
There's no implication at all that the marble was found in Nazareth.
As a market center, antiquities would have been coming and going from there all the time.
So with insufficient reason to conclude the Nazareth inscription relates to Nazareth in any way, we must strike it off our list of evidence to consider, and it does not play any role in helping us to reach a conclusion.
Back in episode number 666, I pointed out that the anecdotal evidence for there having been a Jesus of Nazareth was so voluminous that it justified his existence being our default assumption, while acknowledging that there is insufficient evidence to either confirm or contradict this.
This is not too different from the conclusion that I believe is best supported on the question of the existence of a historical Nazareth.
But I think we have a stronger case this time.
We know Nazareth has been there for a very long time, and that it was there as a settlement before we had proof of its name.
Really, what all the arguments against a historical Nazareth boil down to is that nobody can disprove that it wasn't named something else at the time of Jesus.
In my assessment, that's a pretty weak argument.
We've got no reason to suspect it used to be named something else.
My opinion, based largely on a lack of evidence to the contrary, is that all is as it appears to be, and that a historical Nazareth should be assumed, pending any new evidence.
We continue with more on the Nazareth Inscription in all its drama and Roman-era bloodthirstiness in the ad-free and extended premium feed.
Support Skeptoid Premium Today 00:02:16
To access it, become a supporter at skeptoid.com slash go premium.
A great big skeptoid shout-out to our premium listeners, Joe Benny, Abra Sonnenstein, Matt Brad, Virginia's only skeptic, and Ricard Barud.
Remember, Skeptoid is a 501c3 educational non-profit.
We depend on your monthly micropayments to keep this content available to all the people out there who need it.
Join us in this mission.
Just come to skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You can also get the Skeptoid books.
They make great bathroom reading and they're awesome gifts for people who don't listen to podcasts.
Get them in our online store at skeptoid.com/slash store.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the teacher's toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection