Posted: Aug 07, 2021 1:04 pm
by proudfootz
RealityRules wrote:

From that article -
Until recently, professional archaeologists had largely neglected 'Nazareth' in Galilee. Most of what was known about the settlement prior to the turn of this millennium consisted of evidence found during the construction of the present-day Church of the Annunciation (the cathedral-sized church in central latter-year] Nazareth) and a series of rock-cut tombs discovered predominantly in the nineteenth century. It is often assumed that the tombs date from the period of the Gospels and indicate the extent of the first-century settlement. However, the majority of the tombs can neither be closely dated, nor can it be taken for granted that plotting their distribution enables the identification of the limits of the occupied area ...

... The earliest [Nazareth tombs] found so far date to the first century but there is no reason to assign any of them to the first half of that century. Consequently, they offer no evidence for the character or extent of the early first-century settlement there.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-century

Furthermore, there's no evidence what an "early first-century settlement there" was called ...


:this:

So the current candidate for 'Nazareth' might have been established after the date attributed to Bible Jesus?

FFS!