Diogenes the Cynic

I don't know why the "Nazirite" possibility gets undersold either.

ApostateAbe

Well, there may be something there, and the main reason I would give such a proposition a serious consideration is that we do know for a fact that early Christians crawled through the Septuagint looking for connections to Jesus, and they apparently took the best that they could find. Unfortunately, the connections in this case seem to be too rough and too loose. Mark 1:24 uses "ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ" (holy one of God). Judges 13:7 uses "ἅγιον θεοῦ" (holy to God). Mark 1:24 uses "Ναζαρηνέ" (Nazarene). Judges 13:5 uses "ναζιρ" (nazir). This looks to be primarily merely coincidental. There are a lot of alleged connections between any given two different parts of the Bible, and most of the time, seemingly, the connections exist only in the heads of modern theorists.
I think I will have to look into that more, because it does seem to have at least some explanatory power. How does spin claim to know the original pronunciation of the name of the town of Nazareth?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Apostate Abe,

According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary were from Bethlehem and Jesus was born in Bethlehem. They spent two years in Egypt and then went back to Israel, presumably Bethlehem, and then moved to Nazareth so that he could be called a Nazarene.

2.21 And he rose and took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. 2.22 But when he heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. 2.23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

According to Matthew it was fear of Archelaus repeating the massacre of children at Bethlehem (a massacre unreported by any other source),plus the idea of Jesus fulfilling prophesy by being called a Nazarene that led the family to settle in Nazareth with their two year old son.

On the other hand, Luke says that Joseph was living in Nazareth before Jesus was born:

2.4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 2.5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

After being born in Bethlehem, they go to Jerusalem and then back to Nazareth

2.39 And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.

Thus in Matthew, we have Mary and Joseph going, from 1. Bethlehem to 2, Egypt to 3. Israel to 4. Nazareth so he could be called a Nazarene, in Luke, we have Mary and Joseph going From 1. Nazareth to 2. Bethlehem to 3.Jerusalem to 4. Nazareth.

As it is quite impossible for the same Mary and Joseph to have been in two places at the same time, I suggest that we consider that the gospels are describing two different Marys and Josephs. These were both quite common names so there is no reason to believe that Matthew's Mary and Joseph from Bethlehem were the same people as Luke's Mary and Joseph from Nazareth.

Now the question is, did Mathew's Baby Jesus ever meet Luke's Baby Jesus when Matthew's Baby Jesus arrived from Egypt to live in Nazareth? Was Nazareth such a big town that Joseph from Bethlehem never met Joseph from Nazareth?

We may also explain this with the two Nazareth hypothesis that there were two Nazareths. Joseph from Bethlehem and his family settled in one Nazareth after coming from Egypt and Joseph from Nazareth simply went back to Nazareth from Jerusalem.

What is your explanation?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

hjalti

Was it Meier or Sanders who had Jesus being from Nazareth as one of his 'facts' about Jesus?

I am wondering if the famous popularizers are more certain about the Nazareth stuff than is reflected in the actual scholarly stuff.

ApostateAbe

Jay Raskin, I don't want to argue with you, sorry. I am being a jerk, but I don't want to be a complete jerk, so I am letting you know.

Toto

Being a jerk is a violation of the spirit of the rules here. What part of your previous arguments would you identify as "being a jerk" and would you like to retract them, so we don't have to waste any more time?

hjalti

I fail to see the relevant difference.

In the LXX you also find it translated as e.g. nazeiraios.

Merely coincidental! Ok, we have this hebrew term, nazir, which is translated as "holy of god" and "naz-[something]" in the LXX. Then we have a passage where Jesus is called both "holy of god" and "naz-[something]". It doesn't look coincidental to me. Why would you think, from reading Mark, that it has anything to do with a town called Nazareth?

I haven't searched the LXX for "holy of god" but the commentaries I've read have only pointed me to a single other use of "holy of god" (2Kings 4.8), and that doesn't seem to be really parallel (it's more of "a holy man of god").
Are you asking about how we know that it had a tsade?

hjalti

For what it's worth, I don't either have a clue about what Jay's point is.

ApostateAbe

I am being a jerk by not arguing with him, after he has put so much thought and time into it. The forum does have an "ignore" feature, so I don't think it is against the rules. I ignored him because his hypotheses seem both extremely bizarre and wildly implausible on the face. I let him know so he can spend his time appropriately and not expect a rebuttal.

ApostateAbe

There is a difference in phrasing (ἅγιος τοῦ vs. ἅγιον). If there was a connection, then we would be much more expect the same phrasing. If it is merely similar phrasing, then there is only a rough similarity, and, well, maybe there is a historical connection there or maybe not. I leave it open as a possibility, though. My own model would be able to account for a connection if there were one. It cannot be denied that the New Testament myths were shaped at least very significantly by the Septuagint.
OK, I don't doubt you. Which passage is that?
Same issue as before. We have similar phrasing, but not the same phrasing.
Mark 1:9, mainly, but also Matthew, Luke, John, and the ancient existence of Nazareth as a town in Galilee.
Similar phrases are also found in Lev 21:23 and Daniel 4:9.
Yes, please, if you know. Thanks.