Sarai

I suspect that "Nazirite" became undesirable at the time because it's undeniable association in the Tanakh was decidedly militant. They likely didn't want to be associated with anything viewed as rebellious after the 3 Jewish rebellions that took place between 70 & 135 CE.

Regards,
Sarai

Toto

I took Jay's argument as an extension of your claim of "multiple attestation." The attestations are in fact rather incompatible. I don't think it is much more bizarre than some of your arguments.

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks.

hjalti

I find this minor variation to be very insignificant.
In Judges 13.5, there are a lot of variations there in the LXX.
It has been pointed to you before: It seems probable that Nazareth in Mk 1.9 is a later addition in Mark.

And here is the problem, you are reading into Mark what has creeped later into the whole story, e.g. citing the birth narrative in Lk.

Sure about that? I know a tiny bit of greek, and in the first example we have "the holy stuff/thing of god" (it being in the neuter). In the second example we have "pneuma theou agion", the holy spirit of god.

I don't remember! I just remember that all the stuff I've read about this presupposes that. It's at least written that way in all the semitic languages. Worth a look.

ApostateAbe

Well, OK. You asked what I make of Mark 1:24, and I hope I answered the question.
OK, so, given that, we would have "naziraios" in one variation of LXX Judges 13:7 vs. "Nazarene" in Mark 1:24. Do you think that is an improvement over the connection being "nazir" in Judges 13:7 vs. "Nazarene" in Mark 1:24?
I wouldn't doubt that such a thing has been suggested before, but keep in mind that I have seen hundreds of such propositions. Anytime a certain passage does not fit someone's theory, then it could be an interpolation. I think it would be probable if we had other texts that leave it out, or if we had a good reason that any Christian would have inserted it. Without such an argument, then such propositions of interpolations come off as ad hoc. It is shaping the evidence to fit the conclusion, not shaping the conclusion to fit the evidence.
I have noticed that we skeptics tend to have the perspective that we can not interpret anything in Mark using anything in Luke and Matthew. I would agree with that perspective if Luke and Matthew really had little or nothing to do with Mark. But, the two later gospels not only sourced Mark but they emerged from the same cult at adjacent decades. None of us living today would have nearly as much understanding of the meaning of the gospel of Mark as either one of the authors of Matthew and Luke. Maybe that makes me seem gullible? I don't know, but it seems like common sense that Matthew and Luke very likely thought the same thing about Nazareth as Mark. The alternative would be to come up with an explanation that does NOT connect well with anything else that we know about the early Christian society, and I think one approach is generally better than the other.
Lev 21:23 uses "ἅγιον τοῦ Θεοῦ," the exact same phrase that is used in Mark.
Thanks, anyway.

hjalti

I doesn't make a lot of difference.
Well, we have a text that leaves it out: Matthew.

And I don't think it's shaping the evidence to fit the conclusion, it's something we have to take into account when we consider the various hypotheses.

Abe, I could just as well say something like: "I don't know, but it seems like common sense that Matthew and Luke very likely thought the same thing about Bethlehem as Mark."

And what needs to be stressed is that Luke doesn't seem to know anything about Nazareth. It's only in the birth narrative in Luke that we get Nazareth.
It has the neuter article, "to agion tou þeou". It means something like "the holy things of god". I think it's clearly not parallel.

But let's assume that it actually is parallel (it isn't), then we have 3 (maybe 4) instances of this phrase in the OT. In all but one (but really none) it's a translation of nazir. But we are to believe that when Jesus is called a nazarene and "holy of god" in the same utterance, it's just a coincidence.

Maybe we can find some actual parallels, but until then, I don't think it's a coincidence.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

No problem. Thanks for letting me know.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

ApostateAbe

If you are proposing an interpolation, I think maybe you had better explain how that is probable. Matthew left out that passage of Mark seemingly because he rewrote the whole story of the beginnings of Jesus. Are you proposing that Matthew would be expected to have settled on the proposed interpolated beginning of Mark had that portion of Mark been there when Matthew sourced from it? Also, maybe it would help if you tell me exactly which part of Mark you think is interpolated.
OK, so, exactly what part of the evidence are you taking into account with a proposal for an interpolation? The omission in Matthew? Anything else?
OK. Matthew and Luke certainly thought differently about Bethlehem than Mark. Therefore, you propose, we can't use Matthew and Luke to corroborate or clarify anything in Mark. I think that one source can be used to help interpret another source if the two sources have a strongly similar two perspectives, even they are not exactly the same perspective. That is the way I do history, and you don't have to do it my way, I suppose.
I don't know exactly what you mean, because Luke seems to mention the town quite often. What about Luke 4:16, Luke 18:37, Luke 24:19, and five mentions of Jesus the "Nazarene" in Acts?
OK, that's cool.

aa5874

All we have in the NT, like the myth fables of the Greeks and Romans, are multiple versions of the myth character called Jesus Christ.

In Plutarch's "Romulus", the author did claim that there were other versions of the myth characters Romulus and Remus.

Plutarch's Romulus" It is extremely important to understand that even though we have elaborate and contradictory birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke, the end result is the same.

There is virtually nothing about Jesus in Nazareth for about 30 years. It was after Jesus left Nazareth and was baptized by John when the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like a dove that we begin to learn of the acts of Jesus.

All the authors of the NT show no significance of Nazareth and amazingly only the four gospel authors used the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth".

The Pauline writers, the author of Acts, the authors of the General epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation did NOT mention that Jesus was from Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus in Nazareth had no significance at all in the NT.

Steve Weiss

The bottom line is: are the Gospels history or fiction? Before one can answer that question, one must first specify what one's criteria are for establishing authenticity and then apply that standard to the Gospels. By any objective standard the Gospels, in fact the entire bible, can only be considered as folklore and myth. The stories in the bible are clearly impossible concoctions of primitive minds without the smallest shred of evidence to support them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts and quality of evidence, and there is nothing in the bible that can muster up to even the lowest levels of credibility. Debating what happened in a fictional account is so much wasted time. The emperor has no clothes, so let's not debate the fashion of his garb.