Steven Carr

Here is an interesting Bart Ehrman quote 'What were these Gospel writer to do with the fact that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.'

If it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth, why would Josephus identify him as Jesus called the Christ?

Surely he was known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Of course, nobody ever dreams of thinking of James of Nazareth. Somehow, Christians got along just fine without ever needing to refer to 'James of Nazareth' in their writings.

So why were they compelled to refer to Jesus of Nazareth if this was a) embarrassing and b) not how opponents of Christianity would refer to Jesus the so-called Christ, as we are continually told that Jesus called the Christ was the way to identify that you were talking about Jesus of Nazareth.

There are a lot of name changes in the New Testament. Saul was renamed Paul.

If 'Jesus of Nazareth' was an embarrassing name, why did Christians keep it, when they had ample opportunity to refer to Jesus in other ways?

Jesus himself allegedly renamed people, so their is ample precedent for Christians to drop the embarrassing 'of Nazareth' from their writings.

mountainman

Apollonius of Tyana was renamed to Apollos (See Codex Bezae).

The devil was in the details.

When in Nazareth do as the Nazoreans do, and when in MiddleEarth adjust one's customs to suit the audience of the story.

aa5874

Why are we going around in circles with the bizarre arguments from HJers?

McCain the Senator of Arizona has NOTHING whatsoever to do with where McCain was born.

Jesus the Christ of Nazareth in the NT stories has NOTHING to do with where Jesus was born.

In the NT, Jesus Christ of Nazareth FULFILLED prophecy when he was born in Bethlehem and father by the Holy Ghost of God.

Jesus the Christ of Nazareth QUALIFIED as non-human just as McCain the Senator from Arizona QUALIFIED to be an American because he was born on "american soil" in Panama.

As soon as one EXAMINES gMatthew and gMark it is Clear that the JEWS did NOT even know a character with the name or title Jesus the Christ that LIVED or was Born in Bethlehem or Nazareth.

I simply cannot understand why Christians would have been embarrassed because an ORDINARY OBSCURE man lived in Nazareth.

Thousands of ordinary obscure Jews were Crucified and we hear NOTHING about then.

Perhaps hundreds of ordinary men were probably called Jesus.

Perhaps hundreds of ordinary men were baptised by John.

What would have been so embarrassing for John to baptise an ordinary man?

Perhaps hundreds of ordinary men lived in Nazareth.

Why would it be embarrassing for an obscure ordinary man to be born in Nazareth?

Based on gMatthew, gMark and gLuke, Jesus virtually did NOTHING significant in Nazareth for his ENTIRE lifetime or about thirty years before he was baptised by John.

TedM

You gotta be kidding.

A person can't be identified in two ways?


Why should they when they had other titles they preferred to use?


Perhaps because that's how the people who didn't refer to him as "Jesus the Christ' actually did refer to him..ie perhaps because they thought they were reporting history and as such actually did in many respects.

both descriptions are used in the gospels. Again, two descriptions is not something I have a hard time handling...


Again, they thought they were reporting history, and probably were. Not saying the writers were necessarily embarrassed if they believed the Bethlehem story. It's not just a name either. It is his real name (Jesus) and the place he was known to have been from. How can the writers change the location of his upbringing without believing themselves to be dishonest?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

The answer is given in Matthew's birth narrative:

The character must have been known as Jesus the Nazarene (or Nazorean). A Nazarene is someone who takes a vow to do something for God. Samuel and Samson were examples. Whoever was born in the birth narrative was called a Nazarene/Nazorean Matthew doesn't like something about the idea that Jesus was a Nazarene. He changed the meaning from someone who promises something to God in fulfillment for a wish to someone born in a certain town.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

But, you are merely assuming that Jesus did exist. There is NO evidence whatsoever that Jesus MUST have existed and was a Nazorean/Nazarene because there are massive holes in the very information about Nazareth.

Holes in a story does NOT make the story MORE credible. In fact, when there are massive holes in a story then it is questioned not accepted.

1. Only the four Gospels claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth.

2. Jesus supposedly lived in Nazareth for about 30 years and NOTHING is written of him in Nazareth.

3. The supposed contemporaries of Jesus, the author of Acts and the Pauline writers, did NOT even mention that Jesus lived in Nazareth.

TedM

Acts 26:9
“So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

aa5874

The supposed contemporaries of Jesus did NOT mention Jesus lived in Nazareth.

The author of Acts himself did NOT mention Jesus lived in Nazareth. He wrote about what others said about Jesus of Nazareth and even Jesus called himself Jesus of Nazareth.

Not even the word Nazareth is found in the Pauline writings.

Steven Carr

TEDM
Perhaps because that's how the people who didn't refer to him as "Jesus the Christ' actually did refer to him

CARR
Really? Evidence please that people referred to 'Jesus of Nazareth.'

Remember to include in your answer a statement that Josephus referred to 'Jesus called the Christ' because he decided that was what his readers would know him as.

Steven Carr

If Jesus had to be called 'Jesus of Nazareth' because that was his real name and the place he was known to have been from, why do mainstream Biblical scholars never dream of wondering why there is no James of Nazareth.

More 'ad hoc' rules - one rule for one brother, another rule for another brother.

All we ask for is something other than ad hoc rationalisations of the text.