We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

THE NAZARETH LIE - 6.19.2019

by Aleth Wednesday, Jun. 19, 2019 at 8:46 AM

nazareth did not exist at the time of the alleged birth of the alleged jesus


the real jesus(es) of history were nazoraeans not "from nazareth"

1. " MATTHEW " 2:23

In the gospel of 'matthew' 2:23 we read:

"and he came and settled in a city called nazareth : so that what had been said through the prophets that he would be called nazorean would be fulfilled".

Now to begin with the subject of this phrase in 'matthew' 's grammatical context is joseph not jesus. So if 'matthew' is referring to jesus as nazoraean which he appears to be then his grammar is wrong.

But if 2:23 is a constructio ad sensum and the nazoraean is jesus then what is nazoraean supposed to mean?

Again the seemingly deliberate confusion/information fog here starts with the awkward grammar contradicting the apparent sense.

Anyway 'matthew' clearly seems to imply that jesus was called nazoraean because he grew up in nazareth. But grammar again belies this : in greek an inhabitant of nazareth may not be called nazoraean - greek NAZORAIOS - as in 'matthew' 2:23. In greek it would sound more like nazaretis - see maria-luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/p.65.

So why is 'matthew' trying to cheat us into believing that jesus was called nazoraios because he came to live in nazareth?

On the surface of it why rule out that 'matthew' or whoever wrote 'matthew' 2:23 simply got it wrong out of ignorance and/or poor greek.

But 'matthew' 's greek is generally deemed correct not poor eg by o. da spinetoli/matteo entry/nuovo dizionario enciclopedico illustrato della bibbia/piemme 2005, or by d.b.wallace/greek grammar/zondervan 1996/p.30.

Therefore if 'matthew' wrote that nazoraios means from nazareth which it can't he was deliberate about cheating us. Father forgive him not for he knew what he was doing...

We are being treated to a fair bit of good old information fog or disinformation here:

1. the phrase he shall be called nazoraios grammatically refers to joseph though sense-wise it doesn't register;

2. if referred ad sensum to jesus the nazoraios thing is connected to nazareth which grammatically is nonsense according to greek morphology.

Somebody's desperate to cover something over here - and he's doing a very poor job at it.

One might ask didn't 'matthew' 's ancient greek-speaking readers/listeners realize the fraud?

Well - not necessarily. Because first of all most of them may have been too ignorant to hair-split over grammar. Probably most of them were no native speakers of greek. And the few well educated in those early - and every other time's down to present day's - audiences were probably those who held leadership positions in the early christian church - with no motivation to question doctrine.

Again: 'matthew' 2:23 looks like deliberate dissimulation/deception on the part of whoever wrote it.

Next up once more: what the hell did nazoraios really originally mean that 'matthew' was so desperate to dissimulate?

The debate is millennium-old.


First of all let me suggest we ask ourselves this kind of all-important question whenever debating scripture: since when has 'matthew' 2:23 existed?

Don't tell me since shortly after alleged- 'jesus' ' death because there is no proof a 'matthew' ever wrote his gospel and when. Or that gospel matthew ever even existed at all to begin with, alongside gospel jesus. Therefore let's rephrase: when is the existence of 'matthew' 2:23 first attested to?

Let's pick up our standard scientific edition of the greek new testament :

nestle-aland/novum testamentum graece et latine/2002.

On pp 684 ff there's a list of greek manuscripts handing down the NT or parts thereof to us.

It's not a complete list but it´s supposed to include all the most ancient and best ones.

Now when does 'matthew' 2:23 first occur?

In a III-century papyrus.

Papyrus 70 in nestle-aland's list of which there are apparently 2 extant bits one in oxford the other in florence.

Only the latter contains 'matthew' 2:23 (florence.istituto papirologico "g.vitelli".PSI inv. CNR 419,420) .

Papyrus 70 is dated by nestle/aland back to the III century ce that is to between 201 and 300 ce.

There appears to be no earlier manuscript including 'matthew' 2:23 and no later one until the IV century .

Now I do not know as yet how papyrus 70 was dated to the III century I assume they C14'ed it and analyzed the writing style anyway for now let's assume such a date is correct and someone wrote or copied 'matthew' 2,23 onto payrus 70 in the III century .

This would allow us to say that 'matthew' 2:23 has existed since some time between 201 and 300.

But it does NOT allow us to say 'matthew' 2,23 existed BEFORE 201. That 'matthew' 2:23 existed before 201 is mere speculation.

Because again no earlier manuscript features 'matthew' 2:23 or other lines from chapter 2 .

Which is to say we have no proof whatsoever that 'matthew' 2:23 was written before 201.

Which is a long time after 'jesus' ' alleged death under pilate that is by 37 ce when pilate's tenure ended.

Let me underscore this point one last time: we have no evidence for stating that 'matthew' 2:23 was written before at least 163 years after the alleged death of the alleged jesus. Therefore we may neither maintain so nor deny it with certainty.

Might one say that 'matthew' 2:23 must have existed before the III century because a III-century copy presupposes an older original:

1. how do you know that papyrus 70 is a copy not the original?

2. even IF papyrus 70 is a copy since its precise year is unspecified it may have been copied say in 260 from an original written say in 208.

Therefore again even IF papyrus 70 is a copy there's no telling when its archetype (master/maybe original) was written.

Does any ancient author quote 'matthew' 2:23 before 201?

Not that I'm aware of.

Sure enough greek-language author kelsos in his antichristian book 'truthful speech' VII,18 calls jesus O NAZORAIOS ANTHROPOS - the nazoraean man according to r.bader's scientific edition of kelsos' work. And kelsos' book is dated back to 178 albeit without absolute certainty.

But kelsos VII,18 first of all does not mention nazareth at all nor any OT prophecy therefore it can't be taken as exegesis or quote of 'matthew' 2:23 or as proof for the existence of 'matthew' 2:23 in or before 178. Kelsos VII,18 if authentic and correctly dated is only proof that early 'christian' writings called jesus nazoraios. Kelsos does not tell us what he thought nazoraios meant. Furthermore kelsos' work wasn't handed down to us by dedicated manuscripts in its integrity but only in fragments quoted by church father origen refuting kelsos around 248 - therefore we can't even be sure kelsos is being quoted correctly by origen.

The first author that appears to be commenting on 'matthew' 2:23 albeit without verbatim quoting him is church father tertullian in about 210 (maria-luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/p. 82) in his work adversus marcionem included in the church-father collection called patrologia latina short PL 2.4.8. But 210 (admitting adversus marcionem is correctly dated which I am not now in a position to prove or disprove) is the same age as papyrus 70: III century ce.

Sure enough if tertullian really was writing around 210 about 'matthew' 2:23 then 'matthew' 2:23 must have existed for some time before 210 - but since when it had existed that is when it was written we do not know. Tertullian may have written 'matthew' 2:23 himself for ought I know.

The problem with both 'matthew' 2:23 and tertullian is that they're trying to explain away 'nazoraios' as meaning from nazareth when in fact it may not according to greek grammar.

Back we are full-circle: what did nazoraios really mean and why are 'matthew' 2:23 and tertullian adversus marcionem (both not attested to before the III century that is some 200 years at least after 'jesus') wrongly telling us it means from nazareth?


'Jesus' was called nazoraios.

His first followers also were according to acts of the apostles 24:5 where paul is accused of being the leader of the cult of the "nazoraeans" - same greek word as in 'matthew' 2:23.

Thus apparently acts 24:5 is telling us that the first christians were called nazoraioi (nazoreans).

And they certainly didn't all come from nazareth - "paul" himself famously was from Tharsos - if "he", that is, ever even existed at all to begin with.

Therefore acts 24:5 gives the lie to 'matthew' 2:23 that nazoraios=from nazareth.

O wondrous harmony of the " word of god "...

WHY were 'jesus' and his early followers called nazoraioi?

What are 'matthew' 2:23 and tertullian adversus marcionem PL 2.4.8 so busy dissimulating?


To this day mandeans and manicheans call themselves NASORAYYA in aramaic a language common in palestine in jesus' times still spoken today in parts of the middle east.

And 'matthew' 2:23 's + acts 24:5 's NAZORAIOI sounds quite like the greek translation/transliteration of NASORAYYA doesn't it ?

Mandeans and manicheans are no christians - at least not as we understand the word 'christian' today. Mandeans are to this day the followers of john the baptist. They live in iraq or at least used to before the bushes destroyed the country.

So mandaeans may have taken refuge in what is today Iraq after the assassination of their prophet john the baptist. Scholar Lidzbarski said in 1920 that nasorayya comes from aramaic nasar =hebrew natsor = to protect/keep. In the case of mandaeans, to keep john the baptist's rituals such as baptism by full immersion. Scholar M. Black accepted this theory. He said that early christians were called nazoraioi as well = nasorayya = keepers because jesus' movement was an offspring of john's.

Robert Eisenman in his book the dead sea scrolls and the first christians/element 1996/p.152 tells us that the qumran corpus (=dead sea scrolls representing among other things I-century-ce radical messianic jewish orientation akin to if not identic with john the baptist's) features important self-defining expressions such as NOZREI - brito=KEEPERS of his covenant . Eisenman makes it abundantly clear also in his other all-important work james the brother of jesus vol.1/faber and faber 1997 that for I-century nationalist jewish rebels against roman/herodian authority it was extremely important to 'keep' the torah or law of moses. Torah-keeping and 'doing' was the cornerstone of their ideology/militancy.

The gospels tell us that " jesus " before starting his own ministry first went to john and was baptized by him. And that's when jesus became a nazoraios/keeper according to Lidzbarski/Black.

What 'matthew' 2:23 did not want us to know was that jesus - that's to say the real jesuses of history- really was a follower of john the baptist.


Because john the baptist clearly had been an anti-establishment figure. Ancient jewish historian joseph flavius who was born around the time of john's death in his book jewish antiquities volume 18 chapter 5 paragraph 2 tells us that the baptist had attracted a huge following by preaching perfection justice piety . The gospels tell us he had criticized roman-puppet tetrarch herod antipas for marrying a niece. And john's 'huge following' evidently also saw antipas as the exact opposite of 'perfection justice piety'. Joseph tells us that herod antipas feared john might start an uprising and therefore killed him " in order to get him out of the way " - call it preventive assassination ...

So THAT may well be what 'matthew' 2:23 and his exegete tertullian are trying to cover up through the nazareth lie :


Call it 'doctoring' or 'sanitizing' the movement in Robert H. Eisenman's vivid phrasing.


Manichaeans too reportedly defined themselves as nasorayya = nazoraioi. God forbid people and especially roman authorities would associate christians and manicheans for

'matthew' 's/tertullian's lyin' official-church successors! Manichaeans were the followers of mani a III century ce 'iraqi' prophet who thought he was the savior of mankind. He revered jesus and taught a message akin to john's and jesus'. He became a preacher in 244 and was duly crucified in 277 (notice the age of 33, misappropriated by christian tradition in the collage-like effort to forge a frankestein messiah palatable to all including manicheans : being all things to all men was the guiding marketing principle...) by the persian king who evidently feared mani's social-revolutionary potential much like herod antipas had feared john's 241 years earlier.

Economic equality was a common focus for john jesus and mani - too dangerous for capitalism in all times...

Obviously if 'matthew' 2:23 and tertullian PL 2.4.8 were written respectively some time before 210 and around 210 they were not falsifying the meaning of nazoraios from 'keeper of john the baptist's ways' into 'from nazareth' out of fear of being associated with mani who was yet to be born in 210 - 'matthew' 2:23 and tertullian PL 2.4.8 were written to separate early christianity from john the baptist's/mandaean social-revolutionary implications.

Later church fathers who also repeated the absurdity that nazoraios=from nazareth, such as eusebius of caesarea (c.260 - 340) surely were keenly aware of the potential for associating jesus john and mani and therefore may well have picked up the old nazoraios=from nazareth exegetic trick so as not to induce people or roman authorities into thinking that jesus and his disciples were nasorayya that is one and the same as not only mandaeans but also manichaeans in doctrine - both harking back to the dangerous john the baptist.


The lidzbarski/black theory that nazoraioi=nasorayya=mandaeans is fascinating and accounts for everything...were it not for one detail: that 'matthew' 2:23 piling up layer upon layer of information fog says that it had been "the prophets" who said that 'he' would be called nazoraios.

Except that there is no such prophecy in the old testament as we know it.

Whereas every other OT prophecy quoted in the gospel of matthew is traceable to the OT.

Each of the 2 main explanations for such an oddity make matters even worse for our gospel liars...


Now what 'matthew' may be distorting here ia a collage of old testament passages : the OT passage closest to 'matthew' 2:23 's "he will be called nazoraean" is judges 13:5 which is about a prophecy to the future mother of samson that she'll beget a son "whose head no razor shall touch because the boy WILL BE A NAZIREE consecrated to god from his mother's womb" (my caps).

In the old testament naziree has nothing whatsoever to do with the city of nazareth which is totally ignored by the old testament - and by everybody else in antiquity through "jesus" ' time and long beyond.

Who was a naziree or nazir as per judges 13:5 and why are the 4 canonic gospels so desperate to cover up the messiah's "nazir" status with the ludicrous fabrication of a nazareth birth that no prophet had ever dreamt of at all?

The first occurrence of nazirism in the bible is at numbers 6:1-21 : god instructs moses to institute a special vow (nazirism) "to be holy to god" consisting of :

- abstention from wine and all heady beverages vinegar liquors grapes;

- letting the hair down;

- not touching corpses not even a family member's.

The second point is immediately recognizable in the traditional long-haired-jesus iconography .

The first point is more contentious because according to the canonic gospels jesus drank - but this might be further dissimulating, lying on the part of the gospel forgers just like the nazareth thing again for the purpose of concealing jesus' dangerous nazir status see below chapter X. DID JESUS REALLY DRINK? where i demolish the alleged 'drinking-jesus' attestations in the gospels.

Point 3 not to touch the dead belies jesus' nazir (or at least perpetual-nazir see below) status according to maria luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/p.86 because 'matthew' 9:25 tells us jesus "touched without problems a corpse, jair's daughter" in rigato's words.

But she is wrong : 'matthew' 9:24 tells us that according to jesus the kid "is not dead, she's sleeping". Therefore when in the next line 'matthew' 9:25 jesus takes the girl by the hand he's not touching a corpse but a living. Same story in the parallel narrative of 'mark' 5:39 - 5:41 and 'luke' 8:52 - 8:54. In all other gospel instances of 'resurrections' performed by jesus there's no touching the dead. So nazir vow 3 is accounted for with jesus - he never touches the dead throughout the gospels.

And he wore long hair. But he drank - unless this is another gospel lie see below dedicated chapter.

Now naziree vows could be temporary or perpetual. Samson's nazirism was perpetual "from his mother's womb". That accounts for why he lost his power when his wife managed to cut his hair.

Nazar in hebrew means to separate and to consecrate - samson was set aside for god from before his conception.

Now back to judges 13:1 ff : a guy called manoach had a sterile wife (the usual sterile-wife story so familiar with bible readers see sarah&abraham) whom an angel visits - a clear literary model for the angel visiting mary to announce her the birth of jesus. Now the angel first orders manoach's wife to take a vow of nazirism herself :

" Thou shalt not drink wine nor heady drink nor eat unclean food. Because there you will conceive and beget a son on whose head no razor shall pass because the boy shall be a naziree holy to god from his mother's womb; HE SHALL BEGIN TO DELIVER ISRAEL FROM THE HANDS OF THE PHILISTINES" (my caps). Samson was to be a life-long nazir - and the purpose of this special calling by god WAS TO FREE ISRAEL MILITARILY FROM ITS ENEMIES IN A HOLY WAR ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL.

Which obviously would have been very inspirational to first-century AD radical jihadist jews such as zealots qumranites etc who were hell-bent on awaitin' a militaristic messiah who would deliver them from imperialistic roman occupation with the help of god and his heavenly host in a final apocalyptic armageddon that would bring about the end of evil and the triumph of the just of israel.

Now "matthew" obviously proroman antizealot that he mostly is turns all of this jihadistic sense of judges 13:5 's naziree into "jesus" coming from nazareth - because gospel jesus had to be meek proroman pacifist so as not to irk the structure of roman power then lording it over palestine.

Therefore again the phrasing "he shall be called nazoraean" in matthew is totally distorted into a lie after lifting it from its original militaristic zionistic context - as per usual pattern in the westernizing 4 canonics.

Not to mention the fact that NAZORAIOS is no possible greek transliteration for hebrew nazir - it would have to be nazIraios. Further infog for a change...

From all this we may arrive at the following all-important conclusions:

1. "matthew" 2:23 is lying when he hints albeit in a cloud of grammatical fog that judges 13:5 prophesied the nazareth birth for the christ - judges 13:5 says samson will be a nazir

2. if the gospels are fabricating a nazareth birth it means they're desperate to dissimulate/obfuscate/erase from history a nazir status for the real christs/messiahs of history - that is those radical jewish leaders called zealots etc. who especially in the first century ce devoted themselves to the violent struggle against the romans for the freedom of israel - like novel samsons

3. therefore in the first century and even later the term nazir had come to acquire such dangerous antiroman connotations that it scared the evangelists, who rewrote it into "from nazareth" .

One thing is for sure: "matthew" is taking his bible quote (albeit not a verbatim quote but close enough) out of context and distorting its meaning into a lie because again judges 13:5 has nothing whatsoever to do with the city of nazareth which is not attested to at all for old testament times either by written sources or by archaeology.

Robert eisenman/the dead sea scrolls and the first christians/element 1996/p.117 n.3 says that jesus' brother james' nazir status is well attested to: james was 'holy' or 'nazirite from the womb' for hegesippus according to eusebius eh 2.1,2 .23; epiphanius haeres.29.3,78.13; jerome vir. ill. 2 etc.

"The same claim" - eisenman continues - "i.e.,being specially chosen while in his mother's womb,is put forth by the author of the Qumran Hymns - presumably the Righteous Teacher himself.".

And most likely "whatever james was, jesus was" according to the finale of eisenman's "james the brother of jesus"/faber and faber 1997.


There are indeed strong reasons to suspect that drinking jesus is yet another gospel lie.

Because if we again ask ourselves the all-important question of when the relevant gospel passages are first attested to we find that THE DRINKING JESUS OF 'MATTHEW' 11:19 DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE EXTANT MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF GREEK MATTHEW BEFORE THE IV CENTURY (codices alpha 01 london brit libr add 43725 and B03 vat gr 1209) .



Is 'matthew' 11:19 quoted by any author before the IV century? No such witness is mentioned by nestle/aland's apparatus criticus to 11:19. 'Apparatus criticus' in a scientific edition is bottom-page notes telling us in this case which manuscript witnesses/other ancient authors have a given passage and in what form. To my knowledge the first author mentioning drinking jesus is epiphanius (367-404) - again oh coincidence in the late IV century.

Epiphanius' context 'coincidentally' is one of polemics against identifying NAZORAIOS with NAZIR! (Epiphanius epistula ad theodosium imperatorem - a letter to the roman emperor! Who was the last person in the world that would have accepted the equivalence nazoraios=nazir with its antiroman implications. Thanx to epiphanius' skewed exegesis emperor theodosius in 391 or 392 rewarded sanitized christianity by proclaiming it the official and exclusive religion of the roman empire...).

Once more: nazir status was implicitly nationalistic/antiimperialistic/antiroman therefore it had to be written out of christian scripture if christianity was to survive and gain power. So lo&behold out of the magic hat of late proroman gospel forgers there springs non-nazir drinking jesus of 'matthew' 11:19 NOT attested to before the IV century in textual manuscript tradition and underscored by late-IV-century church daddy epiphanius who in the context of licking roman emperor theodosius' boot de-nazirized jesus turning him into a drinker . I wouldn't be surprised if epiphanius had written 'matthew' 11:19 himself . 'Matthew' 11:19 also serves the purpose of again differentiating drinking jesus from non-drinking antiestablishment john the baptist...

Other gospel occurrences of drinking jesus may be a little earlier than the IV century but see below.

I owe the epiphanius quote to maria-luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/pp 84-85.

Rigato ibidem pp 86-87 reviews other gospel quotes with drinking jesus. Let's check when THEY first appear in manuscript tradition.

1. 'Matthew' 26:29:

- papyri 45 and 53 III century = centuries after 'jesus' .






How about drinking jesus in luke now?

In 'luke' 7:34 poor jesus not only takes to drinking but also becomes a 'friend of tax-collectors and sinners' - the groups radical nationalist jihadist zealot jews ie real early christians hated the most.

Point 1 on the agenda of I-century-ce jewish messianic revolutionaries had been stopping paying taxes to rome.

When is luke 7:34 first attested to ? Let's again scroll nestle/aland's NT manuscript list :

papyrus 75 dated to the III century (P bodmer XIV.XV at cologny) has a lot of luke's chapter 7 until line 32...and then skips to lines 35-39) :


The first attestation for drinking jesus in 'luke' 7:34 occurs as late as papyrus 82 strasbourg p gr 2677 and codices alpha 01 and B 03 THAT IS IN THE IV/V CENTURY THAT IS ONE OR TWO CENTURIES AFTER PAPYRUS 75 IN EPIPHANIUS' & THEODOSIUS' TIME AGAIN - OH COINCIDENCE !

'John' 2 : 3-10 the cana miracle when 'jesus' allegedly turned water into wine is irrelevant because it does not say that jesus himself drank of the wine but only that he turned water into wine and only after first displaying reluctance/annoyance (2:4).

Oh but - above-quoted rigato continues - 'matthew' 27:48 says jesus on the cross accepted vinegar which was prohibited to nazirs therefore jesus was no nazir or at least no perpetual nazir.

Rigato is dead wrong again: 'matthew' 27:48 says someone 'gave vinegar to drink' to jesus on the cross NOT that jesus accepted it. It sounds more like additional sadistic torture than solace. Which is confirmed by 27:48 being lifted from psalm 69:22 "they poisoned my food/and when I thirsted they gave me vinegar" whose original context was yet again zionistic/messianic/antiforeigner: it's judah's enemies 69:19.20.36 who are by the way "drunkards" 69:13 who torture god's suffering servant 69:30.37 by giving him vinegar when he thirsts. That's why nazir jesus in 'matthew' 27:48 does NOT accept a damn thing. The spongeful of vinegar is forced onto his mouth.

In the parallel narrative of 'mark' 15:36 the same sadistic monster who tortures dyin' jesus with the vinegar probably purposefully because nothing could be more repugnant to a nazir than prohibited vinegar also pokes fun at jesus sayin' "let's see if elijah comes and takes him down" - clearly a context of torture . It's ludicrous for rigato to speak of jesus "accepting" the vinegar as if he was comfortably seated in a restaurant choosing his salad dressing.

'Luke' 23:36/37 is even more explicit re vinegar=means of torture/sadistic prank:

"the soldiers poked fun at him approaching and offering him vinegar and saying 'if you are the king of the jews save yourself' ". It's just plain incredible how maria-luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/p.86 can misrepresent all this into crucified jesus "accepting" vinegar contrary to numbers 6:3 forbidding it to nazirs!

The only evangelist who on the faceof it appears to speak of jesus "accepting" the vinegar is 'john' 19:30. It's one against the other 3. But the greek text says jesus "took" the vinegar not that he deliberately "accepted" it. What else could a dyin' man on a cross have done defenseless against a soldier who's rubbin' a sponge in his face regardless of his will as we gather from matthew mark & luke? Jesus' will for 'john' was to fulfill scripture in accepting that last kind of torture not in enjoying vinegar. 'John' 19:28 refers the vinegar thing to scripture as if jesus deliberately had said I thirst before dying so that psalm 69:22 would be fulfilled WHERE VINEGAR IS UNWANTED TORTURE NOT A DRINK OF CHOICE!

In greek the verb LAMBANO to take (in) may refer to both intentional and unintentional acceptance. Therefore when 'john' 19:30 says jesus ELABEN/took the vinegar it does NOT imply consensus to the drinking of vinegar but only that jesus "accepted" the kind of torture prophesied in psalm 69:22 for the messianic suffering servant.

You might have gotten a little confused by now and started wondering whether "matthew" 's 2:23 's nazoraios=from nazareth is covering up for john's nasorayya or for nazir. Well - I think for both.

See, Robert Eisenman in his "James the brother of Jesus" teaches us well how ancient jews just loved word play. And the cluster of similar-sounding hebrew/aramaic words such as nasorayya/nazir and more (see below) all described various concurring features of the typical jihadist radical zealot antiroman jews of the 1st century ce and beyond - whose leaders were the real jesuses of history. Therefore mat's nazareth serves the multiple purpose of obliterating both nasorayya and nazirs and the rest of that dangerous revolutionary word cluster.


According to all exegetes of all orientations matthew 2:23 (the fulfillment of "what had been said through the prophetS " plural that the messiah will be called nazoraean) also harks back to isaiah 11:1 :

" a sprout will bud from jesse's trunk a shoot will sprout from its roots " :

again the original messianic context here is violently nationalistic and warlike : see for instance 11:13 "judah's enemies shall be exterminated" - the terminator obviously being god through his messiah=sprout / branch.

Why would matthew's nazoraios hark back to isaiah's sprout as well? Let's turn to robert eisenman's all-important doctrine from his book james the brother of jesus vol. I faber and faber 1997 p. 240 in my own résumé: 'nazir' 's first original hebrew meaning is consecrated set aside.

But the similar hebrew word nezer also means branch - and here comes isaiah 11:1.

Therefore matthew 2:23 is not only skewing the meaning of judges but also that of isaiah whose messiah again was a samson-like warlike one who would come and destroy israel's enemies in battle. No wonder most jews to this day never bought the christian lie - they knew their scripture way better than to fall for matthew's patently tendentious misrepresentations.

As if all of this disinfo dust storm weren't enough - remember when i told you at the beginning of this essay that grammatically 'matthew' 2,23 's "he shall be called nazoraios" refers to joseph not jesus? Well by 'coincidence' old-testament joseph (jacob's son in genesis) is also called both SPROUT and NAZIR in the same passage (genesis 49,22 and 49,26) !

All of this deliberate mess on the part of an author (or authorS...) such as 'matthew' can only be true 'information fog' typical of every lying establishment propaganda of all times :

say everything and its contrary until people completely forget/miss the original meaning and truth of things.


Only reason why I'll now produce my critique of delirious fred p miller's "isaiah's use of the word 'branch' or nazarene"


is because miller's rant represents the average mainstream 'exegesis' therefore many are being exposed to such propaganda so it's important to refute it.

From the first lines about the 'miracle of prophesy' we learn the freddie is a true believer. Unfortunately blind faith is a false certainty therefore it has nothing to do with science - miller disqualifies himself as a scholar.

He waxes poetic/sentimental about 'isaiah' 's prophesy re cyrus 'given not only before cyrus lived but before the nation was taken captive and the temple destroyed by the babylonians' .

Miller would have us believe that isaiah (VIII century bce) prophesied events of the VI century bce.

Pity that almost any serious decent scholar would tell you that the book of isaiah is NOT the work of just one author as evinceable from the bible itself - see for instance g.odasso/isaia entry/nuovo dizionario enciclopedico illustrato della bibbia/piemme 2005.

For instance if we ask ourselves as usual when 'isaiah' 44:26-28 (cyrus-will-rebuild-the-temple) is first attested to we find that by the year 350 bce that is long after cyrus it still WASN'T !

Because chronicles book 2,36:22-23 attributes the cyrus prophecy to jeremiah not isaiah.

That's to say, as late as 350 bce noone we know was attributing a cyrus 'prophesy' to isaiah.

The first attestation for the existence of 'isaiah' ´s chapters 40-66 (with cyrus) and even 36-39 dates to as late as 132 bce (bible book of siracis or ecclesiastes 48:22-25).

Moreover - odasso continues - there are such internal differences in style historical context and theological angles within the book of 'isaiah' that medieval jewish scholars already had begun to grasp that 'isaiah' was different authors. Classical philologists starting with doederlein in 1789 attributed 'isaiah' 40-66 (with the cyrus 'prophesy') to someone he termed deuteroisaiah that is second isaiah and who lived in the VI century bce. Which is cyrus' time therefore we are talking false prophesies here. Things written during or after the events but fraudulently sold as prophesies. Ever since, a tritoisaiah or 3d isaiah has been postulated by serious scholars for 'isaiah' 56-66.


Any rational person would by now at the very least SUSPEND JUDGEMENT re an VIII-century-bce 'isaiah' having prophesied events to come 200 years later.


And just as fraudulently he is not informing you that most exegetes today opine the cyrus-related part in 'isaiah' was written during or well after cyrus' time - and thus sold as prophesy to the gullible when in fact it was none.

Back to the branch.

The title of miller's rant is again "isaiah's use of the word 'branch' or nazarene".

Now later upon quoting 'matthew' 2:23 miller translates "he shall be called a NAZARENE" (my caps).

Clearly miller is NOT translating 'matthew' 's original greek text which has NAZORAIOS NOT NAZARENOS therefore it's in english nazoraean NOT nazarene. Greek nazarenos is used too in the NT but less than nazoraios and anyway NOT at 'matthew' 2:23. But of course, translating nazarene is yet another sleight of hand on the part of miller because nazarene of course calls to mind nazareth more than nazoraean and that's what miller wants to stick with you just like 'matthew' - that jesus was a nazarene because he was from nazareth which is also etymologically connectible (but by no means certainly) to isaiah's branch.

Moreover 'matthew' 2:23's NAZORAIOS is no precise correspondence to 'isaiah' 1:11 's NEZER=branch because of the different vowels. Again miller resorts to yet another dirty sleight of hand here to make 'isaiah' 's nezer appear more similar to nazoraios which for miller is nazarene:

he wrongly transliterates the hebrew word for branch as NAZER instead of the correct NEZER.

Whereas all bible scholars I'm aware of transliterate it as NEZER, the first vowel being E not A:

see for instance maria- luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/p.76: 'NETSER' (she writes TS instead of Z because in hebrew it's sade not zain); r.eisenman/james the brother of jesus/1997/p.249: NEZER. Fred p miller is the only 'exegete' in the world to transliterate the hebrew word for branch in 'isaiah' 1:11 as NAZER with as first vowel A instead of E.

Why? Because miller wants us to connect more easily with NAzareth...

I shall abandon miller here - hoping you will have grasped by now that the guy either totally ignores Greek and Hebrew and yet poses as a bible exegete or he's a total fraud.

I deemed it important to expose miller's ignorance (fraud) to you because it's so typical for mainstream america's bible teaching in school sunday school etc.


'Matthew' 2:23 clearly is a distorted/inverted reflection of I-century-ce radical-jewish exegetic love of word play. His odd word NAZORAIOS hints at different prophecies combined ("what had been said through the prophetS plural) all of which take us back to one and the same figure of militant warlike antiforeigner messiah. Therefore 'matthew' 2:23 not being able to deny the well-known fact that early christians were called nazoraioi tries to explain away the word's antiroman implications by associating it in readers'/listeners' (don't forget the brainwashing effect of constant liturgical repetition!) minds with dubious 'nazareth'. Let's sum it all up through robert eisenman's words (the dead sea scrolls and the early christians/element 1996/p.154 footnote 19):

"Nozrei ha-Brit [=keepers of his covenant], therefore, is...the ideological root of the usage 'Nazoraean'. Further linkage of this phrase with Nazirite oath procedures popular in James' Jerusalem community (Acts 21:23), life-long Naziritism associated with the persons of John the Baptist, James...and the Nezer or 'Branch', popular symbolism at Qumran, appealed to the sectarian love of word play. See also the stress on 'Doers' in Ja. [=new testament letter of james] 1.22[-24]".

Of course 'matthew' 2:23 has deflected/distorted/concealed the original revolutionary/messianic import of the word play into a different kind of evasive play with the word nazareth...


One last possible original reference for the multi-layered word nazoraios is to the golden plate (hebrew nezer with zain not tsade as in "branch" ) worn by jewish high priests.

The real jesuses of history may have been "opposition" high priests , in eisenman´s words.


At 13:54 matthew pictures 'jesus' as going to his hometown which every single exegete I've read so far interprets as nazareth. But it wouldn´t change much were it bethlehem instead.

He goes to the local synagogue which obviously is not attested to by archaeology for that time in nazareth. And...lo-and-behold at 14:13 jesus departs from there that is nazareth...BY BOAT!

Which is obviously absurd because nazareth lies some 40 kilometres away from the nearest body of water - the lake of tiberias. Not only modern-day nazareth but also the ancient one according to whatever mainstream bible dictionary you might peruse. This remark albeit amidst confused and wrong sourcing is to be found in luigi cascioli la favola di cristo 2a ed. 2005.

Evidently 'matthew' was totally ignorant of Palestinian geography and he was just making things up as he went because his greek-speaking audience /readership whether jewish or gentile knew even less than him about Palestine.

Which implies 'matthew' wrote from outside of Palestine for hellenized/romanized mainstream jews who lived far from Palestine and had forgotten all about it.


Matthew 4:13 : " and having laft nazareth, he came to and lived in capharnaum by the sea".

first remark here is that editors nestle/aland have the variant form nazarà in their greek text, as opposed to 2:23's nazareth. This is further proof that the gospel of matthew cannot possibly be the work of one author and one time: because one single author could not possibly have used 2 different forms for the same name of the same city - first nazareth at 2:23 and then nazarà at 4:13, that is barely a couple of pages later! If we assume for a moment, that the unproven hypothesis matthew was written in aramaic first and then translated into greek, be true, then the confusion may be ascribed to the translators and copyists,but it is still kind of weird that such an important text wouldn´t have seen its spelling normalized and uniformed and standardized in some 1800 years!

Anyway the variant reading nazarà at matthew 4:13 is an odd editorial choice by nestle/aland - because other manuscripts have all possible forms: nazaret, nazareth, nazarath, you name it.

And the earliest manuscript testimony to matthew 2:23 is papyrus 70 which appears to read nazarà not nazareth.

I think what all of this mess goes to show is that whoever concocted greek matthew had poor palestinian geography and was only interested in covering up the antiroman nazoraios concept by way of puns.

However that may be, the real point here is another: when we again ask ourselves the key question: since when is matthew 4:13 attested to? We find the earliest testimony in two 4th-century manuscripts! IV century: 300 to 399 AD - 3 to 4 hundred years after the alleged jesus and the alleged matthew. Again in epiphanius' & theodosius' time etcetera.


late lie? well, at the very least we'll WITHHOLD JUDGEMENT - already a giant leap forward from sheepish blind faith in the alleged "gospel truth".

and well, 4:13 is matthew's 2nd and last mention of nazareth aka nazarà, so he's been dealt with.


First and last occurrence of nazareth in the gospel of "mark" is at 1:9 :

"jesus arrived from nazareth in galilee and was baptized" :

again & all over again oh coincidence no manuscripts carry "mark" 1:9 before the 4th century.


Occurrence 1: 1:26 :

"angel gabriel was sent by god to a town in galilee called nazareth" :

its first witness : guess...4th century yet again...

Occurrence 2 : 2:4 :

"joseph ascended from the city of nazareth in galilee to judaea":

first documented manuscript witness : need i say it? IV century...

Occurrence 3 : 2:39 :

" they went back to galilee to their town nazareth".

1st attested to in our usual 4th century...

Occurrence 4 : 2:51 :

"and he went to nazareth" :

surprise surprise...IV century...

Occurrence 5 : (notice how "luke",the most polished/refined/sanitized of all 4 canonics is the one who most frequently hammers the nazareth point home...) : 4:16 :

"and he came to nazarà. Where he had been raised".

Again let us notice the odd editorial choice by church-appointed text-establishers nestle/aland to print here nazarà after 4 consecutive "nazareths" when manuscripts for this passage have a panoplia of variant forms including "nazareth".

In any event the fact that as late as the IV century manuscript writers can't decide how to spell nazareth in greek speaks volumes for the lateness of the fabrication of a nazareth hometown for "jesus".

Because if "luke" really had been written by one luke in the 1st century and never again been modified/interpolated etc, then even assuming an aramaic original which in the case of greek luke is generally ruled out, you would have expected the word nazareth to be firmly established in fame and form after 300 years!

Because our luke 4:16 is obviously by the way NOT attested to before our IV century, needless to say...

Luke's greek is generally deemed best of all 4 evangelists, it's "literary" according for instance to wallace/greek grammar/zondervan 1996/p.30 - and yet we're supposed to believe such a greek-savvy pen artist wrote nazareth consistently 4 times until 4 pages earlier only to slip into nazarà the 5th time around? Come on, it is much more likely that one or more church higher-ups fabricated a nazareth hometown for their sanitized fake jesus some time starting in the III century but then the word form got lost in translation or copying with western copyists who were not familiar with the original hebrew/aramaic word form and just scrambled over it until centuries later the word finally sedimented in the west as nazareth.

Luckily if I'm not mistaken "luke" limits himself to 5 instances of nazareth lie.


Occurrences 1 and 2: john 1:45-46 :

"we found jesus from nazareth"..."and nathanael said to him: 'can there be anything good from nazareth?' ".

Papyrus 66, which nestle/aland date to c. 200 ce,carries both lines. Which ,if true (I don't know on what reasons that dating is based) would make papyrus 66 the earliest known witness to nazareth, about as early or earlier than papyrus 70 witnessing matthew 2:23's nazareth. Again IF the 200 dating is true, it's still 2 centuries after the alleged nazareth upbringing of the alleged jesus. The same arguments I brought up in chapter 2 apply here.

Once more: if papyri 66 and 70 witnessing gospel nazareth for john 1:45-46 and matthew 2:23 really are 3d- century or early-3d- century then the gospel nazareth lie may have been concocted starting around that time or a little earlier. hat is at a time when apparently a town of nazareth had been refounded for real (after 135 ce : see below).

In any event whether the nazareth lie was launched in the late 2nd century or early 3d or whenever, it doesn't change its lie status as fully proven in chapters 1-13 above.

John 1:45-46 is relatively well attested to by manuscript witnesses: in addition to papyrus 66, we have papyrus 75 and papyrus 106, both also dated to the 3d century.

Three 3d-century john nazareth witnesses plus one 3d century matthew nazareth witness again allow us to hypothesize that the nazareth lie was established starting in the 3d century or little earlier and finally officialized and polished by luke in the 4th.

Again if you object that earlier manuscripts witnessing nazareth may have been lost well you're free to speculate, but speculation it remains.


After 1:45-46 nazareth drops off john's radar screen...amen.


Luke too like matthew has jesus born in bethlehem. But whilst for matthew his family was already living there and thus he was born at home luke has it that joseph and mary were living in nazareth and then moved to bethlehem (because of a census) where jesus was born in a manger although in theory this was joseph's family town... O wondrous harmony of the word of god...

At 4:29 'luke' has it that the people of nazareth got mad at their own jesus and forcibly brought him to the edge of the mountain on which their city was built.

But : modern-day nazareth is not built upon a mountain at all it lies at the bottom of a valley.

This remark, albeit amidst imprecise topographical data and gospel references is to be found in luigi cascioli/la favola di cristo/2a ed 2005. Your church-mandated bible dic du jour will scramble over that by stating that nazareth in jesus' times may have lain further up the hills surrounding nazareth but again there is no conclusive archaeological or literary attestation outside of the gospels for nazareth existing in 'jesus' ' time that is between 6 bce and 33 ce roughly. see archaeo chapter below.


The first written attestation to the existence of a city called nazareth outside of the new testament occurs in a hebrew inscription dated to the III or IV century ce excavated at caesarea maritima in 1958 published in 1962 which apparently mentions nazareth as the seat of one of the 24 priestly courses. I don't yet know what dating methods were used and their error margin.

The 24 priestly courses were 24 groups of jewish priests who took turns in the service of the jerusalem temple as prescribed by bible numbers 24:1-19.

I gather that after the destruction of the jerusalem temple by the romans in 70 and/or after the romans repressed the bar kochba jewish revolt in 135 those 24 priestly courses would have left jerusalem & scattered around with one of them possibly ending up in nazareth.

R.riesner in the entry nazareth of the nuovo dizionario enciclopedico illustrato della bibbia nuova edizione 2005 edizioni piemme also tells us about nazareth being first attested to in the "III-IV century" caesarea inscription. Which means 2 to 4 hundred years after "jesus" ' time.

Thus the caesarea inscription constitutes no evidence at all that nazareth existed between roughly 6 bce and 33 ce - the time of the alleged jesus.

Even if authentic and correctly interpreted and dated the caesarea inscription only tells us that nazareth existed in the III or IV century ce not in jesus' times.

Riesner continues that church father jerome (348-420) and jewish poet eleazar ha-qalir (IX

century) say that after the bar kochba revolt ie after 135 nazareth was the seat of the happizzez priestly course which was the 18th priestly course according to the bible first book of chronicles chapter 24 line 15. so if jerome and ha-qalir are being accurate what do they tell us?

That nazareth existed after 135 when exactly unspecified. Of course in that case it must have already existed some time prior to that unspecified "after 135" - unless the happizzez refounded nazareth themselves. But since when nazareth may have existed before the happizzez reached it and settled there we cannot say. Therefore again even if combined with the jerome/ha-qalir data the caesarea inscription provides no evidence whatsoever that nazareth existed in "jesus" ' times ie roughly between 6 bce and 33 ce.

Let me furthermore remark that the text of the caesarea inscription mentioning nazareth is hypothetical because the inscription is fragmentary on 3 different pieces of a marble slab and was reconstructed by michael avi-yonah. Therefore there can be no absolute certainty as to what the original text said. And again even if yonah correctly reconstructed the original text there is no telling when the happizzez priestly course settled in nazareth therefore again the caesarea inscription is no proof nazareth existed as a city in 'jesus' ' time. See maria-luisa rigato/il titolo della croce di gesù/roma 2005/pp 54-56 which include her unproven hypothesis that the happizzez settled in nazareth in the second century bce !

Of course I cannot thereby prove that nazareth did not exist between 6 bce and 33 ce either.

But any rational person at this stage may only conclude that re the existence of nazareth between 6 bce and 33 ce THE ONLY LOGICAL STANCE IS SUSPENSION OF JUDGEMENT.


Let's now comment on :

r.riesner/nazaret entry/nuovo dizionario enciclopedico illustrato della bibbia/nuova ed 2005/edizioni piemme

which is the most complete and updated state of the issue I've found so far. Riesner tells us that settling in the nazareth area is attested to by archaeology:

- for prehistoric times

- for the 2nd millennium bce

- starting in the XIII century bce (iron age).

But after the babylonian exile that is after 597 bce if my understanding of riesner is correct (I'm saying this because there was an earlier exile that of the northern israel kingdom caused by the assyrians starting 722 bce and I'm not sure if the nazareth area lay within israel or judah at the

time) settlement in nazareth ceased and its area remained uninhabited throughout the persian era that is throughout the VI, V and IV centuries bce only to be resettled in "late hellenistic times" .

So where's the archaeological evidence for nazareth in jesus' time according to riesner?

1. rooms in hollowed-out limestone used as:

-water tanks

-wine tanks

-oil tanks

-grain silos.

All of which according to franciscan friar bagatti as reported by riesner.

I haven't personally verified those excavations yet. Nor seen the original bagatti reports.

But even admitting we are dealing with said storage facilities in the nazareth area HOW DID BAGATTI DATE THEM TO NEW TESTAMENT TIMES? Riesner tells us nothing at all about dating methods used. Bagatti reportedly found artificial caves, holes in the ground, hollowed-out limestone. How do you date a limestone cave THAT exactly ? Did bagatti find any organic remains of the wine/oil/grain? Did he C14 them? Even if he did C14 is notorious for having a centuries-wide error margin. Until I see bagatti's protocols I'll therefore suspend judgement over those limestone tanks.

Riesner himself tells us iron age silos hollowed out in limestone were also found in nazareth so what exactly enables us to rule out with absolute certainty that bagatti's "NT-time" silos aren't 1,300 years older for instance? Anyway riesner insists that other NT - era manufacts were found in nazareth:

2. a few herodian lamps

painted vases

one 2-handled vase

amphorae of the most various kinds.

For this second group of finds riesner credits brunot . I can't help but remark that of the 4 above-mentioned types of manufacts in group 2 only the first if confirmed would take us to NT times - but NOT necessarily because herodian lamps whatever they're supposed to be may have been produced and used after herodian ie NT times too for instance after 135 ce when the happizzez' priestly course reportedly was living in nazareth.

The other 3 types of manufacts for group 2 are so generic they could be from any other time.

Moreover lamps vases amphorae even if confirmed as belonging to NT times may not attest to a city at all but only to nomadic tradesmen or shepherds using the nazareth-area caves that had been there from time immemorial as temporary storage or shelter facilities for instance.

But riesner insists that there's

3. more than 20 hellenistic/roman-era sepulchres too.

His source is a fellow kopp. But again and again: how were those 20-plus sepulchres dated to hellenistic/roman times especially since riesner informs us that II- millennium-bce sepulchres have been found in the nazareth area too? How do you tell a II-millennium sepulchre from an hellenistic/roman one? Is it any specific architectural style we're talking about here or just rock-carved caves used as tombs? The error margins of dating methods such as thermoluminescence are known to be too wide for pinpointing stone into such a narrow time window.

And again furthermore: do 20-odd sepulchres even if hellenistic/roman necessarily attest to a city?

Again nomads may have buried their dead in there - soldiers shepherds brigands you name it.

Riesner says the main caesarea-damascus road in antiquity used to bypass the nazareth area just 3 km to the east. Another road to nearby sepphoris also passed not far. Travellers/nomads etc. may have had to bury their dead in those nazareth-area rock tombs. Joseph flavius tells us for instance in his book jewish war III,289-306 that in 67 ce the city of iapha which riesner says was near nazareth was captured by the romans and an immense slaughter of 15,000 jews ensued. Could it be some of those bodies were buried in the nearby 20-odd nazareth-area sepulchres because they surely had run out of tombs in iapha?

Therefore the 20-odd "hellenistic/roman" sepulchres at nazareth even if real and really from NT times do NOT per se attest to the existence of a city of nazareth in NT times.

The last bit of archaeological "evidence" for nazareth in "jesus" ' time is according to riesner :

4. remains of a I century ce house found by a fellow nitowski in 1987 but for this riesner unlike for the other 3 groups of finds does not provide us with the original nitowski report reference so why should we believe him? How can we verify? Again how was this alleged I-century nazareth house supposedly dated ?

Apparently this house lies under the "dames de nazareth" monastery.

If real and dated with certainty it would represent the ONLY archaeological proof that nazareth was a city or at least inhabited in NT times. But : what kind of a dwelling is this alleged house ?

Hoe do we know it was a city house as opposed to say a country mansion or farmhouse ?

Finally i won't even discuss the so-called "nazareth inscription" (another one not the caesarea one) because according to riesner himself there is no certainty it is to be attributed to NT times.

Recapping on nazareth & archaeology:

according to riesner NT nazareth is attested to by:

1. holes in the limestone used as storage facilities which might as well date back to 1,300 years earlier for ought i know;

2. a few "herodian" lamps & assorted pottery none of which can be precisely ascribed to 6 bce/33 ce and none of which necessarily implies a city as opposed to for instance temporary abode for nomads/travelers/soldiers/refugees/brigands etc. ;

3. 20-odd "hellenistic/roman"-era sepulchres that again might as well instead date back to the II millennium bce for ought I know from riesner's account and furthermore again even if really from NT times do NOT necessarily imply a city as opposed to for instance countryside tombs for again nomads/soldiers/rebels such as some of the 15,000 jews butchered by the romans at nearby iapha in 67 according to joseph flavius ;

4. remains of an alleged "I-century-ce house" allegedly found by a mysterious nitowski in 1987 for which riesner can't even come up with the original research report reference.

Nothing but holes in the ground a bit of pottery 20 sepulchres that anyone may have used at any point in time starting 2,000 bce and alleged remains of an alleged I-century house...

Now you tell me if that's bomb-proof archaeo evidence for a city of nazareth between 6 bce and 33 ce...


'Matthew' 2:23 shoots himself in the foot no matter how we interpret it revealing us the purpose of the nazareth lie:

1. to cover up jesus' and his followers' belonging to john the baptist's anti-establishment nasorayya=keepers

2. to cover up jesus' that is many I-century-ce-and-before-and-beyond jewish would-be messiahs' nazir id est violent antiroman stance.

3. to rewrite jesus being considered the incarnation of isaiah's nezer= 'branch'=violent apocalyptic anti-foreigner messiah.

Furthermore matthew 14:13 tells us astonishingly that jesus departed from nazareth by boat when in fact nazareth lies 40 kilometres away from the nearest body of water.

But then again what's geography worth for the flock of the faithful...

And nazareth is ignored by ancient writers for jesus' times outside of the gospels of course.

The earliest mention of it appears to be in a late inscription relating events which late writers place after the year 135 - 100 years at least after the alleged jesus.

So-called "archaeological evidence" for a NT nazareth appears to be inconsistent or at the very least inconclusive.

Another gospel lie exposed.


JULY 19, 2007

JUNE 4, 2019 EDIT

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy