Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 12-18-2004, 07:25 AM

Notsri dug up the Homily 33:1 reference. Its not on the web.

Quote:

(1) there was no Nazareth at the time of Jesus, (2) the Nazareth of the Gospels didn't exist (but there was a Nazareth), (3) Jesus wasn't from Nazareth.

(2) is more like it.

Quote:

Nazareth could still have existed at that time as a small town, with no synagogue or paved roads...

Luke says there was a synagogue. There must be a markeyplace. Roads for the donkeys and carts, coins (they cant have been self-sufficient). They needed salt and other things.

Quote:

Or maybe there was no synagogue or paved roads, but Jesus came from there anyway, and the synagogue story was added later.

As far as speculation goes, Maybe Jesus came from Egypt. Or Nazareth was two tents etc etc. Its a waste of time to swim in the sea of speculation. Lets stick to the evidence.

Quote:

But did the town of Nazareth exist at that time, or not? Earlier, you suggested that Nazareth may have existed, as a necropolis.

The priestly sect were going to settle there. Maybe when they did settle there, it was already called Nazareth and they figured it must have been Jesus 'lost' hometown.

Quote:

1. Jesus is listed as coming from Galilee, and the town of Nazareth is in the right area. The Gospels appear to be correct here, at the least. Or do we assume that Jesus coming from Galilee is redacted as well?

No. Mark says he came from Capernaum, so Nazareth smashes head-on with Capernaum in Mark. And sparks fly upwards to illuminate a deserted place with the silhouettes of deranged men crouching in the tombs.

Quote:

2. Nazareth seems to have been a Jewish town well into the 3rd C CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10725a.htm), and there is nothing to suggest that it has been renamed.

The correct reading is: the place that is called Nazareth today seems to have been occupied 3rd C CE. We dont know who occupied it and what it was called then.

Quote:

3. There is evidence of habitation on-and-off since the 2nd C BCE.

Evidence of habitation is not evidence of a village. Maybe some traders on a caravan stopped there for two weeks. Maybe some lepers lived in the tombs...

Quote:

I think that Jesus was of the Nazarene group, and He was from Galilee, and somehow this got confused as Jesus actually being from Nazareth.

Dont say that in the presence of Christian Scholars. The dirty looks you will incur will be memorable.

Quote:

But this suggests (to me at least) that Nazareth was an inhabited place at the time, and somehow well known enough to be used by the earliest Gospel writers.

There is No Nazareth in the earliest version of Mark.

andrewcriddle · 12-18-2004, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Here in Mark 1:9 "Nazareth" is apparently a later addition to the text. First, it does not appear in the parallel passages in Matthew or Luke. Another clue that this passage has been redacted is that the writer of Mark characteristically uses the name "Jesus" with the definite article -- "the Jesus" -- but here in v9 there is no definite article, indicating that the text has been tampered with. (Gundry (1993, p47), however, argues in a very strained way that the definite article was dropped to emphasize "Nazareth" and "Galilee" in v9 against the Jerusalemites and Judeans in v5).

Some Greek lexicons say that the first appearance of a character in a narrative tends to lack the definite article, apart from verse 1/ 'the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ' which introduces the work rather than the main character 1:9 is where Jesus enters the story. This may explain why the definite article is missing.

Also there surely is an original mention of Jesus here both in terms of the flow of the narrative and from the parallel with Matthew, if this original lacked any reference to Nazareth (ie read Jesus came from Galilee and was baptized...), then I don't see why changing it to read 'from Nazareth of Galilee' would lead to the loss of the definite article before Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan · 12-18-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Some Greek lexicons say that the first appearance of a character in a narrative tends to lack the definite article, apart from verse 1/ 'the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ' which introduces the work rather than the main character 1:9 is where Jesus enters the story. This may explain why the definite article is missing.

But isn't the definite article present in 1:1 "the Son of God?" Never mind, let's not open the can of worms about that in the manuscript tradition. But thanks, I'll add that to my website as a point against.

Quote:

Also there surely is an original mention of Jesus here both in terms of the flow of the narrative and from the parallel with Matthew, if this original lacked any reference to Nazareth (ie read Jesus came from Galilee and was baptized...), then I don't see why changing it to read 'from Nazareth of Galilee' would lead to the loss of the definite article before Jesus.

You're right, it shouldn't. But if someone tampered with the article, just such a change might be expected. The point is that the accumulation of evidence suggests that Nazareth has been retrojected into Mark. By itself you are right the missing article suggests very little. Another piece of evidence, which I forgot to mention in my little essay, is that v9 parallels v5, with the exception of the instrusive element of Nazareth:

v5
v9

And there went out to him
In those days Jesus came

....of Jerusalem
....[from Nazareth] of Galilee

they were baptized
he was baptized

by him
by John

in the river Jordan
in the Jordan

confessing their sins
("Thou art my son")

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 12-19-2004, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Some Greek lexicons say that the first appearance of a character in a narrative tends to lack the definite article, apart from verse 1/ 'the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ' which introduces the work rather than the main character 1:9 is where Jesus enters the story. This may explain why the definite article is missing.

Also there surely is an original mention of Jesus here both in terms of the flow of the narrative and from the parallel with Matthew, if this original lacked any reference to Nazareth (ie read Jesus came from Galilee and was baptized...), then I don't see why changing it to read 'from Nazareth of Galilee' would lead to the loss of the definite article before Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

This is how Zindler argues it:

Quote:

Mark, unlike the later gospels, mentions Nazareth only once; in chapter 1, verse 9, which tells us that "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee." It is of more than a little interest to learn that scholars suspect this verse to be a later addition just like the last twelve verses of the gospel...When referring to Jesus, Mark always -- except in a few cases where there are strong grammatical reasons to prevent it -- uses the definite article with the name, referring to the Jesus, not just Jesus. In verse nine of chapter one, however, the name is "inarticulate," unlike the more than 80 cases in Mark where it carries the article

Ted Hoffman · 12-19-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Some Greek lexicons say that the first appearance of a character in a narrative tends to lack the definite article, apart from verse 1/ 'the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ' which introduces the work rather than the main character 1:9 is where Jesus enters the story. This may explain why the definite article is missing.

I have access to some Lexicons. How do you look up for info like that - what word for example?

Vorkosigan · 12-19-2004, 08:51 PM

Allegorical interpretation of Nazareth moved to GRD.

andrewcriddle · 12-20-2004, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I have access to some Lexicons. How do you look up for info like that - what word for example?

look up entry on hO (probably a long entry but should have section on use of hO with personal names. )

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon has

Quote:

as respects names of Persons the person without the article is simply named but with the article is marked as either well known or as already mentioned thus we find IHSOUS and hO IHSOUS PAULOS and hO PAULOS etc

Andrew Criddle

Dave Roberts · 12-21-2004, 10:46 AM

This might help

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0230Nazarene.html

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

12-19-2004, 08:51 PM	#26
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Allegorical interpretation of Nazareth moved to GRD.

12-21-2004, 10:46 AM	#28
Dave Roberts Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 1,440	This might help http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0230Nazarene.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.