Talk:Nazareth Inscription

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nazareth Inscription article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

Assuming this artefact is even genuine, why on earth would Pilate bother to report to Rome that a bunch of local nutters had stolen the body of a very obscure crucified criminal? And why on earth would the emperor care enough to bother even making an edict? Looks to me as if mediaeval forgerers might have been having a laugh. Ostercy (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several idiotic aspects of how this thing has been interpreted. Inscriptions with dire warnings against tomb robbing are common among Jews, Christians, and everybody else in the Roman Imperial world. While a Latin edict from Claudius would've been translated into Greek in this part of the Empire, it seems unlikely that the official publication of an edict would be translated into "rather poor" Greek, if that assessment is correct. There is no mention of Jesus or Christianity; on the contrary, if the translation is correct, it is specifically concerning the gods in human religious observances. The gods, plural. "Human religious observances" (again, whatever the Greek might've been) sounds very much like the Varronian distinction between socially constructed religion and whatever the true nature of the divine might be. It seems to me that the connection is backwards: skeptical Imperial sources seem to have assumed that the Resurrection was nothing more than the followers of Christ stealing his body from the tomb—a practice they would have associated with necromancy, prohibited in Roman society, if I recall correctly, as early as the Twelve Tables. That is, the Nazareth inscription provides a general context for understanding skeptical or anti-Christian views, particularly those who saw Christianity as a kind of magic cult. How it can be taken as evidence for the historicity of Jesus is frankly beyond me. The point is, all the material that exercised caution regarding the provenance and so on had been relegated to the notes, and free play given to the more, er, imaginative interpretation. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's rather unlikely that Roman authorities were greatly bothered with Christianity at that very early time (first half of the first century). The thought that this is a reaction to any claim by Christians seems far fetched. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7 year old comments, but WP:NOTAFORUM. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation[edit]

The interpretation section contains some strange writing. I believe it should be made more balanced and clear. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on the article making it more concise and balanced. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV simply because it concentrates on one issue while omitting other academic concerns[edit]

Which are basically about the use of Greek and its implications for the Hellenisation of Nazareth. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources discuss its relationship to the alleged Hellenization or Romanization of the area[1][2] or of ancestor worship.[3] I also see that The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus says it probably didn't originate in Nazareth.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image needed:[edit]

Vitally needed to get an image of the actual Nazareth inscription. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantesacadia (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute[edit]

The mentions in this article that claims that the inscription have been „debunked“ are disingenuous. Both articles cited on support of this clearly state that this is only a theory and that it does not exclude the possibility that the stone was quarried in Kos and exported to Nazareth after being inscribed or through some other means. This is a biased article for anti-Christians. Try adding this quote from the one article cited to make it more balanced:

„The finding proves the tablet “is not from Nazareth,” Bodel says. He notes that the method can’t disprove a scenario in which the stone was transported from Kos and then inscribed

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/tablet-thought-have-guarded-tombs-after-jesus-s-death-may-not-be-what-it-seems Dantesacadia (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also note the following quote from Newsweek

“Jonathan Prag, Professor of Ancient History at the U.K.'s Univeristy of Oxford, who was not involved in the research, commented on the study. He told Newsweek the findings were "perfectly plausible" but that finding the origin of the stone does not necessarily show the origin of the inscription. He also said a next step could be to compare the language of the text to other inscriptions from Kos from the same period, as well as texts from other regions—including Nazareth. He said it would also help to find out if marble from Kos was ever imported to the Nazareth region, which would give an insight into patterns of economy and trade at the time.”

https://www.newsweek.com/nazareth-tablet-jesus-greek-tyrant-1490414 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantesacadia (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to edit it to make it more balanced I would remove the word “formerly” in the lead section because inclusion of that statement makes it seem as if there is no minority opinion or no dissent which is not true based on the sources above. Also common reason will lead you to the wonder how evidence of the stones source discounts all other possibilities. In law this would be considered “insufficient evidence”.

Meaning, no one is saying that it isn’t possible that the theory that it came from Kos is not strongly supported. It’s just that the evidence does not at all vitiate the original theory that it was discovered in Judea and was perhaps issued in response to Jewish fears of a Christian sect gaining power and influence in the region.

There should at least be a “minority opinion” or “dissent” section at the end of the article after the paragraph about the recent discovery.Dantesacadia (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how it is anti-Christian. There's nothing in the Bible saying that this text is associated with Jesus or suggesting that early Roman emperors would be concerned about his tomb. But if you want to include a "minority opinion" in the article, you'd have to prove one actually exists, i.e. reliable sources arguing against the 2020 study. Furius (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]