(August 23, 2012 at 9:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: The only archaeological finds at what has since become the Nazareth site - named after the place in the story as opposed to vice versa - are in the main funerary. As those more familiar with Jewish customs and laws regarding disposition of the dead* will attest, there are strict stipulations about how far from a population centre a burial site has to be located.
The whole Nazareth thing is to do with a deliberate translational sleight-of-hand by the author of (iirc) "Matthew", made with the idea of presenting another so-called fulfilled prophecy. In this case the author took the word "nazirite", referring to a specific type of ascetic monk-type who wore his hair long (as in "no razor shall touch his head; for he shall be a nazirite") and mistranslated it as "Nazarene", with all the locative associations of a place name. There is a little more to the story than this, regarding an offshoot of (I think) the Essenes who termed themselves the Netzorim, meaning offshoot or branch, and this is somehow tied into the whole mess. I'll leave it to our resident biblical history scholars to untangle it as though I'm pretty sure I'm on the right lines, I'm bound to have got things rather confused, or have made it all sound more confusing than it actually is.
Nazareth was a city long before Matthew came along--since soon after the Hebrews came to Canaan. And it's there today. The only question is if it was leveled by the Assyrians sometime between, and if so, when it was rebuilt.
In actuality, the Hebrew words for 'Nazarene' and "Nazirite' are very different. The town identification is "Nats-raht" while the vow is "nah-zear". ( http://www.seedofabraham.net/naz.html ) Do you have references for your conspiracy story?
