Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-18-2004, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
There are significant reasons for attributing the birth of Jesus as being in Bethlehem by later creative followers. None exist for Nazareth...

That isn't true. You may not accept other reasons but that doesn't render them nonexistent. In addition to the possibilities of linguistic confusion already mentioned, Kloppenborg locates the Q prophets in Galilee from the locations mentioned in the "text". Specifically southern Galilee IIRC.

If Mark was using these prophets as a model for the ministry of Jesus, there is another allegedly nonexistent reason for claiming it as his home.

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the town of Nazareth even existed at the time. Has new evidence been discovered?

Vinnie · 02-18-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Authority is no substitute for one's own shortcomings.

Not reading Biblical Greek is a shortcoming? I have no interest in it either way. I use scholarly translations and only suspect passages when actual scholars with relevant qualifications in the field diuspute the text (even if only a minority of them). An internet poster and HJ skeptic named spin on IIDB does not qualify.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 02-18-2004, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
That isn't true. You may not accept other reasons but that doesn't render them nonexistent. In addition to the possibilities of linguistic confusion already mentioned, Kloppenborg locates the Q prophets in Galilee from the locations mentioned in the "text". Specifically southern Galilee IIRC.

If Mark was using these prophets as a model for the ministry of Jesus, there is another allegedly nonexistent reason for claiming it as his home.

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the town of Nazareth even existed at the time. Has new evidence been discovered?

That someone was from Galilee spun the idea that Jesus was from Nazareth is a poor non-sequitur. Sorry, the creativity of your largely non-narrative Q prophets is not that high and should not be treated as such. And why Nazareth within Galilee? Can anything good actually come from there? And why did Nazareth stick so well with Matthew (who had to get Jesus there) and Luke who had to concoct non-history to pull Jesus from there and get him back? The skeptical statement in John?

In the end it all boils down to Mark though. There is no reason to doubt mark's statements unless you think they are translated wrong. The scholars with relevant qualifications don't tend to think they do so I'll side with them. Contra spin, I have life and will not be pulling out the Latin Vulgate any time soon. I'm sure a bunch of scholars already looked at the ASV and vulgate.

And last I checked Nazareth was excavated. Internet scholarship, as usual, if still lagging far behind.

Vinnie

Atticus_Finch · 02-18-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregor
I'm no scholar, but I have always thought that John 7:42 is particularly problematic for inerrantists.

Inerrantists must accept that Bethlehem was Jesus' birthplace, as this myth is at the heart of his role as Messiah. The Jesus in John's gospel was not born in Bethlehem. This is established even more so for in the next sentence of John 7:

43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. . .

Either John did not know the other gospels called for a birth in Bethlehem or some other explanation is needed. John clearly says that some people did not accept Jesus because he was from Galilee.

One possible solution from an inerrantists' point of view is derived from the questionable nature of John 7:53-8:11. Most scholars, including inerrantists that I know of, believe that John 7:53-8:11 is either a later addition at worst, or improperly placed at best. Most bibles indicate that the passage is not present in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

If you read John 7:52 and then jump directly to 8:12 the passage reads quite naturally. In 8:14 Jesus responds, apparently to the question of his home town, and says "I know where I came from..." He was apparently not interested in getting into it with the Pharisees about his origins.

You can wonder why he didn't just say, "Hey, I was born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth". However, I do not think the passage necessarily indicates a problem with the idea that he was born in Bethlehem.

Regards,

Finch

spin · 02-18-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
In the end it all boils down to Mark though. There is no reason to doubt mark's statements unless you think they are translated wrong. The scholars with relevant qualifications don't tend to think they do so I'll side with them. Contra spin, I have life and will not be pulling out the Latin Vulgate any time soon. I'm sure a bunch of scholars already looked at the ASV and vulgate.

I don't expect Vinnie to look at evidence given the above laziness, so for those who want to see a few translations of Mk 1:24 read here. (Note the footnote for the NASB, which says that "Nazarenos" is the literal form.)

All Greek traditions of 1:24 have "ihsou nazarhne".

"Jesus of Nazareth" is certainly an improper translation of the Greek.

Quote:

And last I checked Nazareth was excavated. Internet scholarship, as usual, if still lagging far behind.

And nothing of the town for the first few centuries of this era.

spin

spin · 02-18-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I have life and will not be pulling out the Latin Vulgate any time soon.

It's only a book. It won't bite you. Anyway, here's Mk 1:24:

dicens quid nobis et tibi Iesu Nazarene venisti perdere nos scio qui sis Sanctus Dei from here

It should be sufficient to see the "Iesu Nazarene", shouldn't it?

spin

Mathetes · 02-18-2004, 01:47 PM

Hi, Spin. I don't quite understand your point.

What does "Nazarhnos" mean, according to you?

Toto · 02-18-2004, 02:04 PM

Jesus the Nazarene

Quote:

Jesus the "Nazarene"
It seems clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use, in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus. Many authors have argued that "Nazarene" was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself.

The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene" (e.g. Matthew 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67; Luke 4:34; John 17:5; Acts 2:22). Translations of the Bible, from the fifth century Vulgate on, have generally rendered this into a form equivalent to "Jesus of Nazareth". This is a reasonable translation given that it is clear that all four evangelists did believe that Jesus came from Nazareth. However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible given that Nazareth seems to have been a place of no significance at the time; it is unmentioned in contemporary history, and it is not even possible to prove, other than by reference to the gospels, that it even existed in Jesus's time. The Vulgate does use a form equivalent to "Nazarene" in one verse (Matthew 2:23), where its reading is Nazaroeus (Nazoraios), but here the original Greek has the word Nazarene on its own, without Iesou.

Derivations of "Nazarene"

However, regardless of these issues of translation, it seems clear that the term "Nazarenes" had at least some currency as a description of some followers of Jesus too. What, therefore, does the word mean? The word Nazarene might come from at least four different sources:

the place-name Nazareth, via the Greek form Iesou Nazarene; this is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity, and it still seems the obvious interpretation to many modern Christians. In support of this interpretation is that Iesou Nazarene is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends, as would be natural if a place-name was meant. However in Acts it is employed by Peter and Paul, and attributed by Paul to the risen Christ (Acts, 22:8). In Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene", and though no-one has ever identified what prophecy was being referred to here, this again strongly suggests that Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.
the word netzer meaning "branch" or "off-shoot". This could in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a "descendant of David", or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism.
the word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes".
the word nazir which refers to a man who is consecrated and bound by a vow to God, symbolised by avoiding cutting his hair or drinking alcohol. Such a man is usually referred to as a Nazirite in English translations, and there are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament.

None of these interpretations is unproblematic (for example, the gospels describe Jesus as avoiding ascetic practices, which would make it odd to describe him as a Nazirite). Possibly "Nazarene" was a deliberate play on words that suggested more than one of these interpretations.

For some reason, Wikipedia omits the idea that Nazorean referred to a rebel group (I'll have to dig up my reference to that.)

Toto · 02-18-2004, 02:22 PM

This wasn't what I was looking for, but it came up. I don't know exactly how reliable it is.

Nazarenes

Quote:

John the Baptist was a Nasi�Jesus was his heir, the prince, the leader of a vanguard whose duty was to mobilize the rank and file. Accordingly his converts were called Nazarenes�followers of the Nasi. This explains why the followers of John the Baptist were also called Nazarenes. The Nasi might not be the messiah, that depended upon God. He was simply the leader of the congregation of Israel in the last days, but the semitic root �nsr�, meaning �protector� or �saviour�, suggests that by god�s will he would become the messiah. The sectaries identified the two because the Nasi played the role of the messiah at the messianic meal of the men of renown or repute (Essene leaders�the Council of the Community).

. . .

Christians are called Galilaeans in the gospels and Nazarenes in Acts. Jesus spoke of his converts mainly as disciples. The Greek speaking Christians outside Palestine did not know what �Nazarene� (Nazoraios or Nazarenos) meant and their bishops did not want them to know. Alfred Loisy, the heretical Catholic priest, excommunicated by the Church, confirms that the word �Nazarene� was that of a sect unrelated to a city of Nazareth. The word meant something that gentile bishops had to deny. It is never mentioned by Paul, and even in Acts he is made to prefer the expression �The Way� rather than admit directly that he is a Nazarene. In an attempt to explain it innocently, the gospel writers describe Jesus as �of Nazareth� (apo Nazaret) in Galilee, but the gospels as ever are far from consistent.

Mathetes · 02-18-2004, 02:58 PM

Quote:

In Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene", and though no-one has ever identified what prophecy was being referred to here, this again strongly suggests that Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.

Except that here Matthew does not use the word Nazarhnos, but Nazwraios, whatever these words mean. It seems that the only time it is used inequivocally associated with Nazaret it is not the word "Nazarhnos".

I quickly scanned an online Septuagint for the Greek word for the English Nazirite, and it turned out Naziraios in Judges 13, which is... neither of the other two.

Nice puzzle we are in here...

(Edited cause I didn't seem to be able to get the tags right...)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2004, 01:47 PM	#17
Mathetes Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley Posts: 539	Hi, Spin. I don't quite understand your point. What does "Nazarhnos" mean, according to you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.