Has the Childhood Home of Jesus Been Found?
Jesus’ home in Nazareth
The Sisters of Nazareth Convent
A Roman-period, Byzantine, and Crusader site in central Nazareth
Ken Dark
ISBN 9780367542191
Published September 16, 2020 by Routledge
284 Pages 18 Color & 147 B/W Illustrations
The childhood home of Jesus may have been found underneath the Sisters of Nazareth Convent in Nazareth, Israel, according to archaeologist Ken Dark.
This very well could be the childhood home of Jesus. It doesn’t look inviting, but this rock-hewn courtyard house was quite likely Jesus’ home in Nazareth. The recent excavation by Ken Dark and the Nazareth Archaeological Project revealed good evidence to suggest this is where Jesus was raised. Photo: Ken Dark.
The excavation site located beneath the convent has been known since 1880, but it was never professionally excavated until the Nazareth Archaeological Project began its work in 2006. In “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” in the March/April 2015 issue of BAR, Ken Dark, the director of the Nazareth Archaeological Project, not only describes the remains of the home itself, but explores the evidence that suggests that this is the place where Jesus spent his formative years—or at least the place regarded in the Byzantine period as the childhood home of Jesus.
The excavation revealed a first-century “courtyard house” that was partially hewn from naturally occurring rock and partially constructed with rock-built walls. Many of the home’s original features are still intact, including doors and windows. Also found at the site were tombs, a cistern and, later, a Byzantine church.
Is it possible to identify the first-century man named Jesus behind the many stories and traditions about him that developed over 2,000 years in the Gospels and church teachings? Visit the Jesus/Historical Jesus study page to read free articles on Jesus in Bible History Daily.
The remains combined with the description found in the seventh-century pilgrim account De Locus Sanctis point to the courtyard house found beneath the convent as what may have been regarded as Jesus’ home in Nazareth. Archaeological and geographical evidence from the Church of the Annunciation, the International Marion Center and Mary’s Well come together to suggest that this location may be where Jesus transitioned from boy to man.
Ken Dark also discusses the relationship between the childhood home of Jesus, Nazareth and the important site of Sepphoris. It has been thought that Sepphoris would have provided Joseph with work and Jesus many important cultural experiences. However, Ken Dark believes that Nazareth was a larger town than traditionally understood and was particularly Jewish in its identity—as opposed to the Roman-influenced Sepphoris. This is partially based on the result of his survey of the Nahal Zippori region that separates Sepphoris and Nazareth geographically.
For more on the childhood home of Jesus, read the full article “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” by Ken Dark in the March/April 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
The Sisters of Nazareth Convent
A Roman-period, Byzantine, and Crusader site in central Nazareth
Ken Dark
ISBN 9780367542191
Published September 16, 2020 by Routledge
284 Pages 18 Color & 147 B/W Illustrations
Read the full article “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” by Ken Dark in the March/April 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
A version of this Bible History Daily article was originally published in March 2015.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Misconceptions about Jesus’ brothers:
In order to support the idea that Mary remained a virgin all her life, some have applied different meanings to the term “brothers.” For example, some feel that Jesus’ brothers were actually sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. However, the Bible shows that Jesus inherited the legal right to the kingship promised to David. (2 Samuel 7:12, 13; Luke 1:32) If Joseph had been father to sons older than Jesus, the eldest of these would have been Joseph’s legal heir.
Could the expression refer to Jesus’ disciples, or spiritual brothers? This idea conflicts with the Scriptures, since the Bible says that at one point “his brothers were, in fact, not exercising faith in him.” (John 7:5) The Bible distinguishes Jesus’ brothers from his disciples.—John 2:12.
According to another theory, Jesus’ brothers were actually his cousins. Yet, the Greek Scriptures use distinct words for “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin.” (Luke 21:16; Colossians 4:10) Many Bible scholars acknowledge that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were his actual siblings. For example, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary states: “The most natural way to understand ‘brothers’ . . . is that the term refers to sons of Mary and Joseph and thus to brothers of Jesus on his mother’s side.” See also The Gospel According to St. Mark, Second Edition, by Vincent Taylor, page 249, and A Marginal Jew—Rethinking the Historical Jesus, by John P. Meier, Volume 1, pages 331-332.
http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/was-jesus-married/
The fact that this small city preserved its Jewish identity can be seen in the way that Jewish Law prevailed in the prohibition of burying the dead beneath an occupied residence which would render the dwelling ritually impure (Numbers 19:16), though the house adjacent to the “Jesus residence” was converted into a tomb long after falling into disuse and this reminds me of that song written by Robbie Robertson of The Band entitled, “The Weight”:
“I pulled into Nazareth, was feelin’ about half past dead.
I just needed some place, where I can lay my head.
This recalls Jesus’ words; “Foxes have dens and birds have nests but the son of man has no place to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58) and this just brings home an idea of what he would miss out on (and who would know better than a carpenter who works on other people’s homes but keeps on carrying that beam to his fate). The term “son of man” (bar enosh) denotes man in his weaker aspect and it was a generic term that applied to any man and used frequently in the book of Ezekiel. Thus the hero Heracles who was part god and part human is a tradition that hails back to the Sumerian Gilgamesh who like Heracles wears a lion’s pelt but after wearing his animal skin while wandering through the desert the garment apparently fused with the body of Gilgamesh and required some effort to remove it and cast it into the sea. Isn’t it ironic how during the reign of the last Chaldean emperor, Daniel saw in a vision a lion coming out of the sea (Daniel 7:4) along with other beasts that represent regional powers of the world that would be ultimately come under the domination of “someone like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13), not unlike the situation described on the sixth day of creation in Genesis and that this process of evolution is still underway and “you are the crown of creation” goes the song from Jefferson Airplane and don’t forget the orangutan’s communication to the other test subject who was a chimpanzee concerning their human captors; “They no like smart ape.”
“The firstborn” has meaning “the onlyborn”. As simple as that. The way in which the Bible is written requires different kind of reading.
The book of genesis of Jesus in Matthew, i.e. the account of the genealogy/birth goes from Abraham to David and from David to Joseph. It shows the legal right (through Solomon) to David’s kingship, as He had the same rights as Joseph’s other (older) children. But, in Luke there is genealogy which shows the right (through Nathan) to David’s kingship by blood, and it is actually Mary’s genealogy. In the Greek original, the definite article in genitive stands in front of every name but Joseph’s, thus clearly showing Joseph was included in the account solely because he was married to Mary. Please note that Heli is Joachim, scholars explained how. The bloodline through Nathan also allowed Jesus to avoid the curse “None of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on he throne of David and ruling again in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:30)
However, some today do not believe that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were children of Joseph and Mary. Why? “The Church,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “from its earliest days taught that Mary was always a virgin. In view of this, then, there can be no doubt that Mary did not have any other children.” The same reference work claims that the words “brother” and “sister” can refer to “some one or ones united in a religious or other common bond” or to relatives, perhaps cousins.
Is that really the case? Even some Catholic theologians, disagreeing with the traditional doctrine, support the view that Jesus had fleshly brothers and sisters. John P. Meier, former president of the Catholic Bible Association of America, wrote: “In the N[ew] T[estament] adelphos [brother], when used not merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical or legal relationship, means only full or half-brother, and nothing else.”
“The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective,” by J. P. Meier, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, January 1992, page 21.
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273113
Sepphoris was where the Synagogue was…As well as the temples of many other gods. It was Mary’s home, and they walked there on Shabbat. It is only 3.5 miles downhill, nothing. Joseph likely worked there, or made materials for both there and the farming region of Nazareth. Nazareth was 100 to 200 souls, or about 20 to 30 houses. The 10,000 souls? The Hellenistic city of Sepphoris. Sepphoris is the descended dove (Zipporah) upon the mount; it is the white shining limestone city on the hill over the Plain of Megiddo.
Nazareth? After the destruction of the Second Temple, the descendants of Solomon within the priesthood, resettled there. Where their relatives were already hiding…
For James to serve in the Temple as an alternate, Joseph had to be among the Kohanim.
The cliff, by the synagogue ? It is the façade of the main streets Sepphoris. The cliff is carved into the cross streets of some Roman towns, where they leveled the streets by excavation, and carved shops into the rock face on either side.
There sure are a lot of Negative Nancys on here. The odds of this being Jesus’s house is exactly equal to the total number of houses in Nasareth. Only physical evidence can increase those odds but either way, it is still awesome to find remains of a home from when he actually lived there. You people should try the glass half full approach from time to time.
Don’t you believe this is a bit presumptious stating that one of the many houses built in Nazareth for the residents of Nazareth which has Deen found 2,000 years later is in fact the childhood home of Jesus Christ. It could have been any resident of Nazareth who lived and grew up there. What makes it Jesus’s home ?? The church built over a home in Nazareth was built many years after Jesus’s death.
I keep on seeing the words “could have been…” , “may have been…”, “probably…” In the articles written concerning this dug up house.
Some people have jumped the gun and are assuming that they said “definitely was Jesus’ house.
Then there are some mathematical statements about outlandish “odds” which are astronomical to say the least. If as one commentator stated, that there were probably only 20 to 30 odd houses in the village at the time of Christ then that would make the odds about 20 or 30 to 1, which are a lot better odds at it being more probable than the astronomical odds of wining the mega lottery, whichever lottery they are talking about.
Another thing to consider is that just because the “convent” was built a few hundred years later over a building, does not exclude traditional belief that this was in fact Jesus’ boyhood house. Tradition can be both truthful as well as fallacious. So one must not assume that time will necessarily make tradition to be wrong.
Could have been Jesus’s house. Could be an 8000 BC temple. Depends on your perspective.
This is incredibly backward technologically in that it is not possible to reply to a specific post. For the person who said this piece would go better on some sensationalist news site, it would go well on World Nut Daily. I am becoming discouraged as supposed academic and scientific sites are going all soft, fuzzy and infotainment.