Jezreel is New Testament Nazareth.

I'm not questioning the traditional identification of Nazareth because I'm impressed by any New Atheist pseudo Archeological claims it didn't exist till the 2nd century.  I think that Nazareth is perfectly Ancient but probably wasn't called Nazareth originally being one of the villages of Japhia mentioned in Joshua 19:12-16.

The Problem is Matthew 4:13-15's application of Isaiah 9:1 (which I'd often willfully misread in the past) clearly says that when Jesus left Nazareth for Capernaum He was entering the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, meaning where He was before can't be part of either of those tribal allotments.  And both traditional Nazareth next to Japhia and Sepphoris which was my former alternative theory are firmly in Zebulun.  Since NT Nazareth was definitely part of the Greco-Roman era definition of Galilee that pretty much narrows it down to Issachar, possibly including areas originally first allotted to Issachar that Manasseh wound up taking according to Joshua 17:11, Judges 1:27, 1 Chronicles 7:29 and 1 Kings 4:12.

Why is Zebulun already added to Isaiah 9's definition of Galilee since everywhere else the name of Galilee appears in the Hebrew Bible it's just to the sea of Galilee and thus when talking about west of the Jordan tribal allotments only tied to Naphtali?  Well Isaiah was contemporary with the Fall of the Northern Kingdom when the people of Naphtali were carried away into captivity by Tilgathpilneser King of Assyria, Zebulun however was among the tribes specifically not deported, they are still there for Hezekiah's Passover.  So I think once Naphtali's lands were depopulated the people of Zebulun who had a pretty small allotment originally basically expanded to absorb formally Naphtalite territory.  And that's why I believe all of the 12 Disciples except Judas Iscariot were of the Tribe of Zebulun.

The popular theory that the name of Nazareth is related to the Hebrew word for Branch used in Isaiah 11 is often criticized on the grounds that the Hebrew letter Tsade usually becomes a Sigma in Hellenic transliteration, so the spelling of Nazareth in the Greek texts of the NT using a Zeta implies the letter for Z used in the Hebrew or Aramaic was probably Zayin.

Did you know the medieval/modern Arabic name for the city of Jezreel is Zir'in?  At first glance I found that weird, but it does descend from the same Semitic root that is the core of the Biblical Hebrew Jezreel, the Hebrew word Zerah commonly translated Seed.  And indeed in both Zerah and Jezreel the Hebrew letter for Z is Zayin.  Meanwhile the Hebrew letter for N is sometimes used as a Prefix meaning "we will".  If Jezreel is the Hebrew and Zir'in the Arabic then it could be that in-between Nazareth was the Aramaic.  Meanwhile the meaning of "Branch" is still related poetically.

Joshua 19:18 placed Jezreel in the territory of Issachar which is outlined in Joshua 19:17-23, though it could be that verse is referring to the valley not the city.  Being associated with the border it could indeed be an area that was ultimately taken by Manasseh.  I think in the NT era those tribally of Issachar were called Iscariot and that the family of Mary was probably of Manasseh.

The Prophet Hosea mentioned Jezreel by name four times in total, thrice in chapter 1 in verses 4, 5 and 11, and then one last time in chapter 2 verse 22.  They first speak of YHWH Avenging the blood of Jezreel agaisnt the house of Jehu.  The concept being alluded to there is the Goel/Redeemer of The Torah who is supposed to be a Kinsman.  

But then the other uses of the name are more positive happy ending references.  They also involve Hosea naming one of his sons Jezreel.  I think it's reasonable to interpret Hosea as foretelling that the Messiah who will Redeem Israel will be of Jezreel, and that this is the Nazarene Prophecy Matthew 2:23 spoke of.  Also Paul in Romans 9:25 quotes passages of Hosea that were in the context of those Jezreel prophecies.

Meanwhile the role that Megiddo plays in the history of Jehu in 2 Kings 9:29 and how it parallels Megiddo's role in the fate of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:29-30 and 2 Chronicles 35:22, has me thinking that the avenging of the Blood of Jezreel agaisnt Jehu is tied to the Eschatological role of Megiddo in Zachariah 12:11 and Revelation 16:16.  After all the Valley of Jezreel is also called the Valley of Megiddo.

When Herodotus in Book 2:159 of his histories while discussing Pharaoh Necho refers to the Battle of Megiddo where King Josiah died, he spells the name of Megiddo as Magdolos.  Maybe the Magdalene epithet used in The Gospels actually refers to Megiddo?

There is also the matter of Jesus foretelling He would not be accepted in His "own country", or Hometown in some translations (referring to Nazareth) in Luke 4:24, Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and John 4:4.  Traditional Nazareth and nearby Japhia/Yafa became Christian in antiquity and still have significant Christian populations to this day, in fact they were majority Christian as recently as the British Mandate Census of 1922 and and again in 1931.  But Jezreel never became Christian, it was visited by Christian Pilgrims in the 4th century who depict it as still practicing it's Pre-Christian rites, and then Zir'in was a purely Muslim city.

Now you could argue that Muslims view Jesus as a Prophet so Zir'in accepted Jesus as a Prophet and as Messiah Ben-David when they became Muslim, but that's a very roundabout indirect way to accept Jesus.  When one converts to Islam it is the Prophethood of Muhammad they are chiefly accepting, Jesus just plays a role in that message.  It would be like referring to Christian Europe as Mosaic.

It can also be argued that Jesus meant at the time, clearly all those past Prophets "not accepted in their own town" He had in mind were accepted Posthumously by their Prophecies becoming canonized Hebrew Scripture.  And as a proponent of Universal Salvation I believe everyone accepts Jesus eventually.  So no I would not rule out traditional Nazareth and look for a city that never became Christian based on this argument alone. It again comes down to these Hosea prophecies, can they arguably be viewed as not fully completely fulfilled till the Second Advent?  I think they can but I don't see it something to be dogmatic about.

But also just how shocking it is that this city never became Christian even during the Byzantine period when it was the dominant Religion in the region and some Emperors actively sought to persecute those who didn't convert?  Jezreel's stubborn refusal to convert is frankly admirable in that context.

I think New Testament Nazareth might actually be Sepphoris.

[Update June 30 2021: I'm Abandoning this theory.  I was quite confused about the Geography of Sepphoris, and now I've noticed that Jewish Tradition equates it with Kitron of Judges 1 which is a problem.]

[Update Setemper 2021: I have this new Theory instead.]

Misconceptions about the Magi and the Census

Matthew 2:1 clearly says.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem

And yet today the notion is constantly being promoted that the Magi arrived 2 years later, or at least over a year.

The first argument for this presented is saying that Jesus was called a "child" not a "baby".  However the same Greek word translated "child" in Matthew 2:8, Luke uses in the same form in 2:17 to refer to the newborn Jesus on the day He was born.  And the form of the word used in Matthew 2:9 is used in Luke 2:21 of Jesus at his Circumcision.  So that whole argument is based on ignorance of the Greek.

That Herod ordered everyone under two years old to be killed was probably him grossly rounding up.  Matthew 2:16 clarifies Herod determined this from when they saw the Star.  And at the time Herod asked when they saw it they both may have thought the birth happened when they saw the star, but they were Human. 

God's inspired Word in Matthew 2:1 clearly and unambiguously synchronizes the Birth of Jesus to when the Magi arrived in Jerusalem, not when the Star was first seen.  God used the Star to bring them to where He wanted them when He wanted them.  And I think even if the Magi told Herod the King was probably born now not then, Herod would not have wanted to take a chance on it.

Matthew 2:8 says Herod told them to "search diligently" so he may have given them plenty of time before realizing he'd been snubbed. So I don't think the two year time frame in question cleanly begins or ends with the Birth of Jesus.

"You're placing the Presentation in The Temple between the Magi's Visit and Herod ordering the massacre" You may object. Herod wasn't always in Jerusalem, in fact most years he usually wasn't.  He may have been there when Jesus was born simply to be there for Hanukkah or whatever Holiday you think correlated to The Nativity.  So it's easily possible he wasn't there 40 days later when the Presentation happened.

Or maybe the language of Matthew 2:1 can allow the Magi to show up a little later after the 40 days, but certainly not two years.  

But there is one last argument against The Magi arriving in Jerusalem when Jesus was born, and I saved that for last because I want to use it to transition into something else.

That argument is that in Matthew 2 Jesus and His parents are living in a House not an Inn/Stable.  In the past I'd argued simply that a few days could be enough time for them to find better living quarters, as not everyone in Bethlehem when they first arrived was gonna stay there, some the Census may have been making travel even further.  But my views on that changed which I want to explain below.

The problem is much of how we picture the Birth of Jess is indeed not Biblical.  There is no Biblical account of them seeking room in an Inn and finding none.  Nor does it anywhere say He was born in a stable or a cave, that tradition comes from Christianized Rome wanting to make a cave for worshiping Adonis into a Church, thus we get the current Church of the Nativity.

The one occurrence of the word "inn" in the KJV of Luke 2:7 is mistranslated.  The Greek word is Katalumati.  The other two times it is used it is translated in the KJV "guestchamber".  It means a guest room of sorts usually located on the upper floor of a house.  It is used of the Upper Room of the Last Supper in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11, one of those is the same author as this verse.  In Luke 10:34-36 Luke uses a completely different Greek word for a commercial Inn, Pandoceion.

And this statement that there was no room in the Katalumati comes after Jesus is born not before, it's about where to place Him after being born.

Luke 2 also doesn't even say Jesus was born as soon as they arrived in Bethlehem.  Verses 1-5 tell us the Census brought them to Bethlehem, and then verse 6 says while they were there the time for Mary to give Birth came.   They could have been in Bethlehem for weeks or even months.  Which also addresses the common criticism of making Mary travel this far at a full 9 months.  I now think that she may well have been only 4 or 5 months pregnant when they traveled to Bethlehem.

Here is a decade old article I found arguing much of what I've argued here, though some aspects of it I may disagree with. 
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/11/08/The-Manger-and-the-Inn.aspx

[Better Link]

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/new-testament-era/2803-the-manger-and-the-inn

Some theories about the nativity bring up a question of "how did the Shepherds know where in Bethlehem to look" something brought up for both the Migdal Eder theories and supporting the traditional site saying it was a famous rock formation that looked like a Manger.  However I don't think finding them was difficult because I think only one baby was born in that city that day and it was probably the talk of the town.

So there is in fact nothing in Luke's account to definitively contradict a theory that Jesus was born in a house that Joseph (or his family) owned.  Yet I myself was still clouded by these misconceptions when I made all my previous Christmas relevant posts.  

It's possible there was no room in the guest chamber because others of the House of David were also staying there at this time.

Which is why I want to move on to the Census now.

When refuting the common assertion that a Roman census would never require such traveling on message boards I would copy/paste the following which I no longer remember where exactly I got it from.

First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they matchup with the Bible:

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that
all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."

Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D.which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:

"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the Gospel account.

The response I got (that at the time I wasn't ready to respond to) was that the point of these was to bring land owners to where they owned their land, not the hometown of a distant ancestor from a thousand years ago.  (Another objection is that these were Egyptian customs, but it's logical to speculate that similar ones were done in neighboring provinces).

That notion seems inconsistent with the Nativity narrative only because of the extra-Biblical assumptions I just addressed.

The reason these Census instructions were needed is because clearly many people were living somewhere other then where they actually owned their property.

Remember, the word translated "Carpenter" in reference to Joseph could also very likely imply he was actually an Architect.  He may have been in Galilee because of a construction project, perhaps one of Herod's many.  And of course those insisting Nazareth is too young a city to be the Biblical one suggest it was at most brand new when Jesus was born.  Maybe Joseph was helping build Nazareth?  Or Sepphoris which wasn't too far away?

This Census, (whichever one it was, I'll try to tackle that in the future), then required him to return home sooner then originally planned.

And if my argument that Bethlehem is "Zion, which is the City of David" is true. Then that adds a lot to the above observations.  As we now see that David's family never stopped being linked to Bethlehem after they became Royalty.

Now I've seen someone argue that Nazareth not Bethlehem must be their hometown in Luke because of Luke 2:39.  Well Luke 2:3 says they are to return to their "own city", so if Luke 2:39 is calling Nazareth their "own City" in contrast to Bethlehem then you're not even dealing with an inconsistency with other sources but accusing Luke 2 of being inconsistent with itself.  Since no one accuses Luke of being garbled together from different authors like they do some other books, that option isn't really viable.  Luke 2:39 is simply about Nazareth becoming their new hometown after deciding to move there permanently, with Matthew 2 providing the reasons why this change in residence happened.  It may be that the English simply words this misleadingly.

Now this doesn't change that events of Matthew 1 take place while Mary and Joseph were in Nazareth even though Matthew doesn't mention Nazareth in that chapter.  But Matthew doesn't mention Bethlehem in that chapter either, Bethlehem is first mentioned in Matthew 2 when Jesus was born, and six to nine months separated the events of chapters 1 and 2.  In fact the way Bethlehem is specified in Matthew 2:1 could be taken as implying that's not where they were previously.

And it's still possible that Mary was indigenous to Nazareth.  Maybe Joseph met and courted her while in Nazareth on business.  Or maybe this arranged marriage is what first brought him there.  But the fact that Luke gives us the impression that the events of Matthew 1 didn't happen till three months into Mary's pregnancy makes the most sense if we presume Joseph was living in Bethlehem when the Annunciation and Visitation happened, and came to Nazareth for the wedding a few months later.

Oldest Synagogues, They go back to the Hasmonean era

"The earliest archeological remains of a synagogue building on the island of Delos in the Aegean indicate a late second-century or possibly mid-first century BC date of construction, while earlier inscriptions and papyri have been discovered in Egypt, commencing with the third century BC."- Levine, Lee. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10628-9.

"A number of very early synagogues date from the 1st-century AD. A synagogue dating from between 75 and 50 BC has been uncovered at a Hasmonean-era winter palace near Jericho."-http://www.archaeology.org/9807/newsbriefs/israel.html, 
Israel's Oldest Synagogue. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/modul...y/story_id/8390/edition_id/159/format/html/displaystory.html

"More than a dozen Second Temple era synagogues have been identified by archaeologists."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/index.html 2010-09-08. Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The oldest Samaritan synagogue, the Delos Synagogue dates from between 150 and 128 BC, or earlier and is located on the island of Delos."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/delos.html Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The Jericho Synagogue, the oldest, securely dated, mainstream Jewish synagogue in the world was built between 70 and 50 BC at a royal winter palace near Jericho."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/jericho.html 1998-03-29. Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The oldest synagogue fragments are stone synagogue dedication inscriptions stones found in middle and lower Egypt and dating from the 3rd century BC"-http://www.pohick.org/sts/egypt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migdal_Synagogue
This one was discovered in 2009, also once a city skeptics insisted didn't exist till the 2nd century, like Nazareth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Qelt_Synagogue

The Wadi Qelt Synagogue located in Wadi Qelt a mile southwest of Jericho, is the oldest synagogue found to date. It dates from between 70 and 50 BC, and was built as part of the Hasmonean royal winter palaces complex in the desert oasis of Jericho.

Where Simon was from
http://www.pohick.org/sts/cyrenaica.html 


http://www.pohick.org/sts/jerusalem.html

the pre-70 dating of the inscription has been firmly established through both paleography and an analysis of the find's archaeological context. Not only do the inscription's letter-forms closely match those of other inscriptions dated to the Second Temple period, but all of the pottery and artifacts discovered with the dedication also date to this era.

http://www.pohick.org/sts/capernaum.html

Most recent excavations have revealed two synagogues, a white limestone synagogue dating from the fourth to fifth centuries CE, and a black basalt synagogue dating from the first half of the first century CE. Only foundation walls, gray marble column fragments and a cobblestone floor remain from the earlier structure, which measured 24.5 by 18.7 meters on the exterior and possessed walls over a meter thick.

View of the IV-V century Limestone synagogue, looking north. This structure was built on top of an earlier synagogue that was founded in the first century CE and constructed out of basalt. Only the foundation walls and cobblestone floor remain from this earlier building (see below). (Column drums made out of gray marble have also been discovered in a lower stratum of fill material.) It is thus the basalt synagogue which is referred to in the four Gospels.

Upon taking office in Caesarea, Florus began a practice of favoring the local Greek population of the city over the Jewish population. The local Greek population noticed Florus' policies and took advantage of the circumstances to denigrate the local Jewish population. One notable instance of provocation occurred while the Jews were worshiping at their local synagogue and a Hellenist sacrificed several birds on top of an earthenware container at the entrance of the synagogue, an act that rendered the building ritually unclean. In response to this action, the Jews sent a group of men to petition Florus for redress. Despite accepting a payment of eight talents to hear the case, Florus refused to listen to the complaints and instead had the petitioners imprisoned.
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 5

Not Synagogue related, but evidence for Nazareth.
Nazareth Archeology