Keth Matthews wrote:
> Well, just for starters, there's the dishonesty about Nazareth. Excavation
> has failed to produce any evidence for a settlement there in the early
> century AD/late first century BC, despite the 'recreated working farm'.
Again, I'm speaking as a religious/historical numpty here. I always thought
the "Jesus of Nazareth" bit came from the gospels, which were written not
too long after the event. If this were the case, it would figure that
Nazareth was known to the writers, and therefore if not a settlement at the
time of Christ, certainly pretty soon afterwards. Obviously this is flawed,
otherwise it would not be such a bone of contention. So when was Nazareth
first introduced into the equation?