Cesc

There's a good article on wiki on this.

Nazarite or Nazarene, or a Nazarene from Nazareth or a Nazarite from Nazareth with the Nazarene sect?? Complete confusion! :huh:

It seems that all four Gospels speak of a town called Nazareth.

Transponder

I noted some time ago that Matthew says that Capurnaum 'Kepher-nahum' was Jesus' 'own city'. It could have been because he lived there in the sense that it was his centre of missionary operations but it is not clear that his family lived there. If the gospels are to be trusted, they still lived in Nazareth. For what it's worth, Luke calls Bethlehem Joseph's own city though he apparently lived at Nazareth.

However, there are doubts about Nazareth having existed as a town or even a sizeable village in Jesus' day. In spite of attempts to talk up a well and some farm terraces as proof of a thriving town it really doesn't look like one, certainly not big enough to have its own synagogue as required by Luke. History, including Josephus, is silent about Nazareth until much later. For that matter, the other gospels are also silent about the stoning attempt in Luke. Did it really happen? There have been problems in locating a suitable cliff
in the region of Nazareth. Also the event is not very likely. These were Jesus' own neighbours after all, and for him to be called on to do any speaking in the local synagogue would imply some measure of standing. Further, his little speech, announcing a prophecy of himself in Isaiah, goes down well at first.
We hear the 'is this not Joseph's son' line which appears in other contexts in the other Gospels. It looks as though Luke has done what he often does - takes a line and builds an event around it. I suggest that he uses the threatened stoning in John at the temple on the feast of Tabernacles and re-uses it here. Where in John, Jesus had to hide and escape, in Luke the action freezes and Jesus is just able to walk away. Given that this whole event sets out the gospel agenda - Jesus was the prophecied messiah but the Jews rejected this, can we really believe this is a real event?

If so, is the Nazareth link real? Why say the Jesus was from Nazareth if he wasn't? The answer is obvious if one recalls that Jesus, Nazarene, really means a member of the sect of the Nazarenes. It doesn't look well for the gospel agenda of showing Jesus as opposed to Judaism and all its works (while 'fulfilling' the Law, mind you) while being a member of a Jewish Pharisaical denomimation. So link him with a town, also named after the Nazorenes, and the link with Judaism can be sidelined. Jesus can be made to look like a proto-Christian.

I don't doubt there could be a lively debate about this but I'm putting my money on Jesus Not being from Nazareth, in which case, Capernaum seems the alternative, as Matthew says. Of course, if Jesus never existed and the whole story is made up, then he couldn't have come from Capernaum, either.

Transponder

[QUOTE=Cesc;5528079]The factual accuracy of this section is disputed. (wiki)

Caused by the gospels trying to disguise the facts. However, it is a point that even the earliest gospels mention Nazareth as a town. On the other hand there is evidence that all the gospels - in their present form - date to after the Jewish war. Post 80 AD.

spamandham

Even many Christian scholars do not look at the Gospels in that manner, and I would wager there are no more than 1 or two non-christian scholars who approach them that way.

I tend to take Markan priority as a given among the canonicals. So, Mark best represents the earliest extant version of the canonical gospel story.

According to Crossan, "synagogue" did not imply a building in the first century, but rather, it merely implied a regular gathering, which could simply take place in someone's home. That said, Luke is a later rewrite of the gospel story, so it doesn't really apply to this discussion, IMHO.

...plausible.

True, but Capernaum is probably then relevant to the story for some reason, as it is called out by name...what is that reason?

Transponder

[QUOTE=spamandham;5532926]It's not so much that I approach them in that way, but I have to bear in mind that they may not be trustworthy. I may say that I have been struck by how many critical books on the gospels take the Jesus quotes as reliable. I am now quite sure they are not.

I gather this is because it looks like rough Greek and that's a good enough reason - one of the early converts, perhaps even a disciple...however, Marks' mix - up around the trips from Capernaum to Bethsaida which the other gospels do not follow makes me think that those other Gospels must have had an earlier version which was not Mark. I'm thinking of an early Matthew. A little off - topic but I'd be glad to discuss in a suitable thread.


Point taken. However that is not how luke looks. It looks like a bunch of people assembling in a sizeable synagogue. The more closely related the group the less plausible the murder attempt. There is still point that only Luke reports it and I can find a johannine source from which it might have been lifted. Further I have found Luke doing the same elsewhere, so, though I take your point on the synagogue, I don't think it helps Luke out too much, though it might argue that a synagogue - type assembly might be held even amongs a few farms - if one could get a minyan together.

That said, I'll have a look at what 'synogogue' (I think a place of learning together) meant in Herodian and Roman times. I've learned it best not to take any assurances on trust.


I hadn't thought of a particular reason other than it being Jesus own city of birth and residence. What's your idea?

spamandham

I haven't really given it any thought, but now that you ask...

Some of the stories in Mark appear to be political commentaries, such as this one.

The fact that Capernaum is mentioned within the context of driving out an evil spirit, suggests to me the possibility of yet another political commentary. Perhaps because Capernaum was not involved in the Jewish revolts? Is the 'evil spirit' the spirit of rebellion?

Transponder

There's a lot of considerations here. I always thought that all of Judea Galilee, Ituriae and Trachontis was involved in the Jewish war. Scorched earth from Bethsaida to Jerusalem. However, if you have any support for that...?

That said, Jesus does slag off Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum (damn' let's find me interlinear Bible...Matt 11.21-4 Luke 10 12-16. NOT Mark or John, interestingly) but not Nazareth. Remarkable when Capernaum and Bethsaida had treated him pretty well overall and so far as I know he did nothing in Chorazin. Could that be because they actually get pretty well blitzed in the Jewish war and, when the gospels were written up, that devastation had to be predicted, whether or not deserved?

There are, of course, plenty of devil - expulsions but only that one reference to Capernaum as Jesus' own city. It's always stuck in my mind, especially in view of the doubts about Nazareth. That's actually matt. 1.38 the return from Jewrassic pork or, as I call it, the Bay of Pigs. Just a return home.

I must say it's easy to find symbolic analogies for healings (The church will heal the withered hand of the Judean famine, the church will heal at a distance the sick son of the Roman state in Cana as a metaphor for Rome) but I tend to go for the simpler explanation, that the gospel writers loved to trot out yet another miracle as a teaching point, whether the lack of faith of the disciples, the gratitude of the gentile as opposed to the Jews or as a reason to buck the Sabbath. I think the gopels make perfect sense as Paulinist propaganda against the Jews and their mosaic law.

spamandham

I'm not aware of any source that explicitly states that Capernaum was not involved in the revolt, however, if the wiki is correct, there are no sources stating that it *was* involved. Further, Josephus wrote that when he was injured in battle, he was taken to Capernaum, suggesting that it was a safe haven.

...this is speculative. I'm not trying to make a definitive claim about Capernaum, but just throwing it out there as a possibility.

Transponder

A lot of it is speculation. :redface: Josephus was unhorsed at Bethsaida wasn't he? The first major battle of Vespasian's Jewish campaign? If so Capernaum would presumably be safe at that time. It rather implies that it was safer for a rebel than Tiberias, say. That might have marked it down as a target for sacking in due course, (1) but this is all speculation on my part.

Incidentally, looking at the thread on Gerasa-Gadara and the link between the Roman campaign and Jesus' travels seems to miss the travels around lake Galilee (2) and the Galilean campaign. Major battles at Jotapa and Sepphoris were in Galilee? However, Capernaum as Jesus' 'city' really depends on whether Nazareth can be discounted. I'd be interested to see whether 'The Nazorene' really works better as a sect member than a citizen of Nazareth.

I noted that Nazorenes tended to avoid wine whereas Jesus appears to have sunk the stuff by the bucket. A lot depends upon how much of that is down to Christian gospel - writing.

(1) When the Romans returned, they had 60,000 heavily armed and highly professional troops. They launched their first attack against the Jewish state's most radicalized area, the Galilee in the north. The Romans vanquished the Galilee, and an estimated 100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...sm/revolt.html

There are some notes on the Galilean campaign here - useful if not scholarly

http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar03.html

(2) IF any of the Jesus story is true, I think the assembly at Bethsaida is, though I doubt the travels to Phoenecia and the Decapolis.

Casper

It wasn't Bethlehem?

<---------ducks and runs away quickly