[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nazoreth vs. Nazorean
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:07:11 -0600, jpman@accesscomm.net writes:
>
>Thomas M.Simms wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> You are correct on the epigraphic attestation of Nazareth. The earliest
>that I can recall is the Caesarean inscription on priestly courses c. 300 CE.
>The strongest evidence for Nazareth as a settlement during the Roman period are
>the tombs, most of the kokim type and four of the "rolling stone" type no later
>then 70 C.E.
When were these discovered and where are they with respect to the present
community? Were they possibly a family group part of an estate?
Tom Simms
>
>
>Jack Kilmon
>JPMan@accesscomm.net
>