Terrifel, the anthropologists weren’t seeking to recreate Jesus, just someone whose looks were in the same ball park. It’s no more incredibly stupid than hypothesizing the looks of dinosaurs based on bones and the features of current reptiles.
monstro, my beef isn’t with the science involved, it’s in the presentation. For an article which doesn’t purport to document an attempt to recreate Jesus, they sure seem to mention it a lot. If they want to tout their recreation as “Larry, the Hypothetical Israelite,” that’s fine, but Jesus really doesn’t enter into the equation. You could go out to the Dead Sea and take a picture of some schmoe walking his dog, and have just as likely a representation of Jesus. Or would you consider my proposed method to recreate Washington’s appearance to be at all reasonable?
Well, the exact physical characteristic of ancient Jews still isn’t known with any certainty. At least the skull was in the same ethnic neighborhood. Not that that really means anything.
Gotcha.
According to this site, Nazareth has been around since 75 B.C. Plus there are references to Nazareth in the Bible, the last book of which was written in 90 A.D., which is obviously before the second century.
I’ve also heard of the red curly hair appearance of Jesus. Where did this originate from? I would thing that the appearance of a culry red-head in a Jewish community would cause something of a stir.
You know, when you put it like this, it reminds me of an old joke: Some folks are visiting a monastary and are asked if they’d like to see the Holy Relics that the monastary has. They say yes, of course, and in the course of the tour are shown a small skull and told that it’s the skull of Jesus. When the visitors point out that the skull’s far too small to be that of Jesus, since Jesus “died” as a man, one of the monks replies, “Ah, yes, but this is Jesus’s skull when he was a boy!” :eek:
[quote]
skott
The earliest signs of the existence of Nazareth as a village date from the mid 2nd century. a single family farm has been excavated which is older, but a farm is not a village. Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, or in any rabbinic literature.
The gospels were written as follows:
Mark: 67-70 CE
Matthew: at least 70 CE
Luke: 90 CE
John: 120 CE
Please note, however, that these are only the dates of composition. The actual manuscripts are from the second and third centuries and are several generations removed from their authors. Since archaeology does not show a settled village at Nazareth before the 2nd century, I think it’s reasonable to speculate that an older designation of Jesus as a Nazarite was later redacted to Nazarene in subsequent manuscripts, including a possible editorial insertion of the village of Nazareth into the texts.
Of course, it’s also possible that Nazareth was a tiny collection of farms (maybe two or three) during Jesus’ time, and that this settlement expanded into more of a full scale village after the crucifixion because it was known as his hometown.
(It is my understanding that archaeologists have more recently uncovered a little more evidence of BCE habitation in the area, if not a full community.)
Date of Jesus Birth:
Beetween the 6 and 23 of july (Joseph and Mary were in Bethelem due to the census that the Romans made in that year, the census was made just after the first crop so that is the most probable date of birth), I found references to it when I was making my Thesis, and he Died in the passover of the year 33 A.D. (it is stated in roman papers that a Man was spared his life (barrabas) and a priest from Nazareth was crucifixed.)
So …there you have it…
Hey Kix,
Welcome to the boards. How did you arrive at July 6-23 for Jesus’ birth? I’ve seen many months suggested even to the exact day, but it’s always extremely speculative. The year alone is hard enough to track down, with dates coming in as early as around 10-20 B.C.E. on through 6 or 7 C.E. for his birth. Have you been able to reconcile Matthew stating that Jesus was born in the days of King Herod (2:1) and with Luke (2:1-7) saying he was born in the days when Cyrenius was governor of Syria? King Herod died in 4 B.C., and Cyrenius didn’t start his reign until 6 or 7 C.E…
What Roman papers state that a priest from Nazareth was crucified in place of Barabas? Or you using the Bible as reference?
JZ
I read one cite which said that Stephen Pfann from the Center for the Study of Early Christianity had found pottery that was from around the 2nd century BCE to the 4th century C.E. in Nazareth. That might show as DtC has pointed out that at least a farm or farms had been there. Seems like there would be more evidence for a small town at that time, and there may very well be. I haven’t looked into that much. Nazareth seems to have been met with silence with historians and others writing about that time though. Josephus was rather long-winded, and mentions dozens of towns, but doesn’t mention Nazareth once from the sources I gathered. Nor is it ever mentioned in the OT. I don’t think any writings exist of Nazareth outside of the NT during this time, and even Paul whose writings cover about half the NT has nothing to say about it. The OT does mention Nazarite’s, but it has nothing to do with the name of a town. It’s only a title for those making a vow of abstention as you probably already know. It’s also important to note the dating that DtC has pointed out. The gospels have had their share of re-writes.
I’ve also heard of the red curly hair appearance of Jesus. Where did this originate from? I would thing that the appearance of a culry red-head in a Jewish community would cause something of a stir.
I think much of this comes from the pictures of pagan gods, which Christians adopted to their religion. These pictures often depicted one having long yellow or red hair. The Roman emperor, Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) said Serapis was the peculiar god of the Christians. Most of these pictures tend to show a florid complexion too.
JZ
Kix
Welcome, but you are completely mistaken in almost every detail.
First of all, there was no Roman census of the world in the year 1 (or any other year). There was a census of a few local provinces in 7 CE under the Syrian governor, Quirinius. Since Herod died in 4BCE, this can’t be the census referred to in Luke. Furthermore no Roman census ever required those being polled to travel back to their place of birth.
I can assure you that there are no Roman papers such as that which you referred to with regard to Barabbas, in fact there is no contemporay documentation whatsoever which pertains to Jesus in any way. There are plenty of spurious documents and forgeries from later centuries, though, and some of these are brandished on web sites as “proof” of Jesus’ existence. The internet is not a good place to do serious research if you don’t know what you’re doing.
While I admire the certainty with which you post those dates, I’d be curious where you got them, particularly the date for John.
A quick check of a couple of references turns up:
(Feine, Behm,) Kümmel’s Introduction to the New Testament:
Mark 64 - 70
Matthew 80 - 100
Luke 70 - 90 (Acts 80 - 90 or possibly a little later)
John 90 - 100
Jerome Biblical Commentary:
Mark 64 - 69
Matthew 80 - 90
Luke + Acts 80 - 85
John 90 -100
Alternatively, the rather wide range of (partial) texts that exist from the second century, none of which refer to Nazirite rather than Nazareth or Nazarene, would not tend to support the Nazirite/Nazareth confusion.
I am not willing to stake a claim on either supposition, but I find strong claims for the Nazirite rendition to be pretty speculative.
tomndebb,
I got my dates from my handy dandy copy of The Complete Gospels, put out by Robert Funk and Robert Miller and based largely on the research of the Jesus Seminar.
My hard copy of the book puts the first edition of Mark at 70 CE and says it was probably composed during the Roman-Judean war of 67-70 CE.
I said Matthew was at least 70 CE (because it references the destruction of the temple) but you’re right that it’s more like 80-90.
The JS flatly puts Luke at 90 CE and this is consistent with everything else I’ve ever seen. I’ve never seen that 70 CE date before, and I would like to know how that was arrived at.
As to John, well it depends on which version of John you’re talking about. There is an early version at 90 CE, but the final version (which is what we use now) doesn’t appear until 120.
As to the Nazarite/Nazarene theory. I didn’t say there was a strong claim for it, just that it was a possibility. There certainly is doubt about whether Nazareth existed as a village before the 2nd century.
Not on my part. I looked up the word Nazarite in a “Strong’s Concordance” and there is only nine listings for it it the OT. Nazarites is listed three times in the OT. Nothing is noted in the NT. Also, right beside Nazarite is states Title applied to one making a special vow of abstention.
JZ