The fact that the Gospel writers (Mark and probably Matthew writing in the 1st century) mention Nazareth suggests that it existed. I think it's more believable that Nazareth existed (as a small village, of no real note) than that the Gospel writers made it up and there happened to be a place called that a couple of hundred years later. There's no reason if it were a place of 100 or so people that it would appear in writings at the time.
Saying that it's possible that the Gospels may have referred to Jesus as a Nazarene, and it's been corrupted to Nazareth over time. Although this is unlikely with the number of references.
Be careful about who you listen to facts from as crackpot extremists tend to be dishonest with the evidence (and I include the people like Acharya S who deny that Jesus existed as a person in the same category as fundamentalist religious people).
On the note of Nazarene, some people think it's based on Nazarite, not sure if this is the case though.
Saying that it's possible that the Gospels may have referred to Jesus as a Nazarene, and it's been corrupted to Nazareth over time. Although this is unlikely with the number of references.
Be careful about who you listen to facts from as crackpot extremists tend to be dishonest with the evidence (and I include the people like Acharya S who deny that Jesus existed as a person in the same category as fundamentalist religious people).
On the note of Nazarene, some people think it's based on Nazarite, not sure if this is the case though.
