Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 07-06-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

OK, thanks, that is a good point. Do you think it is also a fitting explanation that Matthew may have left out "Nazareth" because he wanted to rewrite the hometown of Jesus to be Bethlehem instead of Nazareth?

The author of Mt has already relocated Jesus to Nazara (what you think is a spelling variation of Nazareth) in chapter 2, so that doesn't seem to do the job.

Quote:

What did you mean by that? What is your argument?

My point is not that related documents should never be used to shed light on a particular document. But that we should be very careful not to read later developments and traditions into earlier documents. I think reading Nazareth into nazarene in Mark is doing that.

Quote:

Yeah, spin can also be difficult to understand. Are you saying that the only place in Luke where a certain spelling of "Nazareth" is found is in the birth narrative, and the other instances of the name in Luke contain other variations? I would just like to know how you make your judgment that "Luke doesn't seem to know anything about Nazareth." I treat those variant spellings as referring to the same thing. How do you think of them?

I can't but agree with spin that Nazara is probably just formed from Nazarene.

The pattern we have in Lk is this: Only in the birth narrative do we have Nazareth (4 times). I accept the theory that the birth narrative is a later addition to the Lukan gospel (I think Tyson convinced me of that in Marcion and Luke-Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk)). But in the main text of Luke we have Nazara (1 instance) and, Nazarene (1 instance, taken from Mk), and Nazorean (2 instances, probably derived from Nazara).

Abe, I think that the idea that Jesus actually came from Nazareth is probable when you first look into this, but I think that the details and nuances of the issue don't support the case.

hjalti · 07-06-2011, 08:10 AM

I want to add that I don't think that it's somehow absurd to think that Jesus actually came from Nazareth (although I disagree with that), but I find that the details and nuances of the issue point to it not being clear at all.

Maybe it would be more productive to write out the details of each hypothesis and how it would explain the relevant facts, and discuss the outline of the arguments, instead of going back-and-forth like this.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I want to add that I don't think that it's somehow absurd to think that Jesus actually came from Nazareth (although I disagree with that), but I find that the details and nuances of the issue point to it not being clear at all.

Maybe it would be more productive to write out the details of each hypothesis and how it would explain the relevant facts, and discuss the outline of the arguments, instead of going back-and-forth like this.

I am game for that. We could actually take this to Debate.org. It is a great medium, because pressure is applied to keep focus on the respective resolutions and present the arguments and counter-arguments fully. How about it? The resolution can be: "The town of 'Nazareth' existed at the reputed time of Jesus Christ." I am Pro, and you can be Con. If you are game, then register at Debate.org, tell me your username, and I will throw you a challenge. Or you can throw me a challenge (I am registered as "ApostateAbe").

avi · 07-06-2011, 09:11 AM

In my opinion, all you need to do, Abe, is furnish some evidence, which, thus far you have declined to do, of archaeological evidence of a Nazareth existing 2k yrs before present.

avi

PhilosopherJay · 07-06-2011, 09:22 AM

Hi ApostateAbe,

This is a good argument.

The only reason that I can see for the Second Century rewriters of the Gospels to make Jesus come from a fictional town of Nazareth is if the character of Jesus was originally known as Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus the Nazarite.

Here is a description of a Nazarite From Wikipedia

Quote:

In the Hebrew Bible, a nazirite or nazarite, (in Hebrew: נזיר, nazir), refers to one who took a vow described in Numbers 6:1-21. The term "nazirite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated".[1] This vow required the man or woman to:

Abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins, intoxicating liquors[2] and vinegar distilled from such.
Refrain from cutting the hair on one's head
Avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members, and any structure which contains such

Note also:

Quote:

The practice of a nazirite vow is part of the ambiguity of the Greek term "Nazarene"[25] that appears in the New Testament; the sacrifice of a lamb and the offering of bread does suggest a relationship with Christian symbolism (then again, these are the two most frequent offerings prescribed in Leviticus, so no definitive conclusions can be drawn). While a saying in (Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-35) attributed to Jesus makes it doubtful that he, reported to be "a winebibber", was a nazirite during his ministry, the verse ends with the curious statement, "But wisdom is justified of all her children". The advocation of the ritual consumption of wine as part of the Eucharist, the tevilah in Mark 14:22-25 indicated he kept this aspect of the nazirite vow when Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." The ritual with which Jesus commenced his ministry (recorded via Greek as "Baptism") and his vow in Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:15-18 at the end of his ministry, do respectively reflect the final and initial steps (purification by immersion in water and abstaining from wine) inherent in a Nazirite vow. These passages may indicate that Jesus intended to identify himself as a Nazirite ("not drinking the fruit of vine") before his crucifixion.[26]

Luke the Evangelist clearly was aware that wine was forbidden in this practice, for the angel (Luke 1:13-15) that announces the birth of John the Baptist foretells that "he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb", in other words, a nazirite from birth, the implication being that John had taken a lifelong nazirite vow.[27]

In my opinion John was originally called John the Nazarene or Nazarite.
At some point the name was changed to Jesus the Nazarene. To avoid confusion the name was again changed to Jesus of Nazareth and John's name was changed to John the Baptizer/Baptist (the dipper/dipped).

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aspronot

I haven't the time to answer this entire post fully tonight but I can't let this part above pass. Amazing, unless I misunderstand you. Isn't Matthew having his cake and eating it too? Unlike Mark, his zeal has Jesus being both from Bethlehem (born there) and from Nazareth (raised there) so he could be called a Nazarene. Mt 2:23. Your argument seems to be that Mark didn't think to go that far (with the unbelievable Egyptian escapade for yet a 3rd prophecy fulfillment), Mark and Matthew are dissimilar, therefore we should accept the story about Nazareth. Astounding logic. The purpose of Nazareth is quite clear as Mt 2:23 points out; it is a reference back to a Samson-like figure who will deliver Israel from its enemies. You can seemingly accept that Bethlehem is shoe-horned in for for prophecy purposes, but you can't see it for Nazareth?

I don't know where you get your "discernible early Christian interest" from. On the one hand you seem to be hinting that the gospels were written to order based on demand, ie. by the early Christian audience (which casts doubts on the credibility of your earlier reasoning concerning the relatively faithful recording of myths). On the other hand, you accept Nazareth because Mark presumably chose (?) not to humour his audience and bring in Bethlehem as well. :huh:

I think I should explain further. It is not about a dissimilarity between Matthew and Mark. It is about a dissimilarity between the claims of Christians and their apparent interests. The formulation of the criterion of dissimilarity is that: if the claim is dissimilar to the known interests of the author, then the claim is more likely to be accurate. Conversely, if the claim is similar to a known interest of the author, then the claim is less likely to be accurate. Early Christians had a known interest in Jesus being from Bethlehem, since they interpreted a known Jewish prophecy as predicting that the messiah should be descended from Bethlehem. But they did NOT have an interest in Jesus in being from Nazareth. The community of Matthew made up the prophecy to fit the known fact about Jesus. How do we know? Because it is not contained in any extant or externally-attested Jewish writing (the proposed connection to Samson is a very loose fit when the texts are closely examined), Matthew does not specify the prophet, none of the other Christian writings place prophetic significance on Nazareth, and there have been many Jewish messianic claimants and their cults throughout history and none of them claim any connection to Nazareth. The only plausible interest that Christians had in claiming that Jesus was from Nazareth is that it was a known fact that Jesus really was from Nazareth. Therefore, Jesus really was from Nazareth.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

In my opinion, all you need to do, Abe, is furnish some evidence, which, thus far you have declined to do, of archaeological evidence of a Nazareth existing 2k yrs before present.

avi

I have declined to do that mainly because I don't have access to the evidence, except through third-hand sources on the web. A few archaeologists reputedly claim to have found evidences dating to all of the relevant centuries, but I think the best I can do to is to argue using the dates that dissenters accept. What do you take to be the earliest archaeological evidence for the existence of Nazareth from the first century and onward?

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Right. The Bible says it. I believe it. That resolves it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you think that represents me?

I realize that you don't treat the entire Bible that way. But in this instance, until you show the forum some proof, independent of canonical scripture, of Nazareth's existence during the first century, I don't see what other argument you could have for it.

And just by the way, I am not one of those skeptics who claims that its nonexistence has been proved. So far as I can tell from what research I have managed to do so far, the only defensible position is that nobody knows whether the place existed during Jesus' alleged lifetime. But I also think that the place's existence is totally irrelevant to any argument that does not presuppose inerrancy. In particular, on the question of whether Jesus himself existed, it sheds no light whatsoever.

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The dogma of anti-Biblicism is hardly better than the dogma of Biblicism, and I think we should be careful not to let such irrational prejudices prevent us from accepting probable conclusions.

I have no quarrel with that, but I will deny that my position can be fairly characterized as anti-biblicist. (Though I do understand why it would seem so to evangelical apologists, having been one myself once upon a time.)

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The basic evidence is that we have archaeological evidences for Nazareth in Galilee that can be reliably dated to a range of time overlapping with the alleged time of Jesus

Google gave me 217,000 hits for "archaeological evidence for Nazareth." You could save me a lot of wasted time by telling me which one you think is the best one.

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The way I see it, almost all legends have at least some bits of truth in them.

Almost all? It should be trivially easy, then, to name two legends with confirmed historical kernels that you regard as relevantly analogous to the gospel stories about Jesus.

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

07-06-2011, 08:10 AM	#102
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	I want to add that I don't think that it's somehow absurd to think that Jesus actually came from Nazareth (although I disagree with that), but I find that the details and nuances of the issue point to it not being clear at all. Maybe it would be more productive to write out the details of each hypothesis and how it would explain the relevant facts, and discuss the outline of the arguments, instead of going back-and-forth like this.

07-06-2011, 09:11 AM	#104
avi Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Location: eastern North America Posts: 1,468	In my opinion, all you need to do, Abe, is furnish some evidence, which, thus far you have declined to do, of archaeological evidence of a Nazareth existing 2k yrs before present. avi

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.