Malachi151

We all know that Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth, meaning that he was from a place called Nazareth.

This comes, apparently from a misunderstanding of the term Nazarene. Matthew makes it pretty clear where this comes from.

This was already a part of the Markian story though.

Now, we also know that there is no evidence for a place called Nazareth until some time in the 3rd or 4th century, and indeed we have several lists of cities of Galilee that do not contain this town from prior to that time.

So, if Mark made up a fictional place where Jesus came from, isn't this a dead giveaway of an intentional allegory?

Either Mark was confused and misunderstood the meaning of Nazirite, thinking that a Nazirite was someone from Nazareth, which I don't think is likely, or he intentionally created the fictional Nazareth using a play on words, as authors often do in allegorical histories.

If this is true, and can be supported with any significant weight, this this alone points to Mark as pseudo-history and his Jesus as fictional.

gstafleu

If he made up a fictional place, what is the chance of him picking the name of a future real place? If Nazareth does indeed not appear until the second century, or later, then either the proud inhabitants named it after Mark's fiction, or Mark was written later than we think.

Gerard

Mythra

Christians will claim that Nazareth was just a tiny little hamlet, and that archaeological research has proven its existence since 400 BCE.

Unfortunately, the gospels call Nazareth either a "town" or a "city" - not a "farmhouse".

And the archaeologists were catholic archaeologists. I'm sure there was no conflict of interest or biased findings there.

Malachi151

I'm quite sure that it was named after the Nazareth of the gospels.

Malachi151

The existence of a settlement, no matter how large, in the location of the currently named Nazareth does nothing to establish that this place was called Nazareth at the time the gospels were written.

Towns change their names all the time, and perhaps this was a place that was so small that it had no name, and then around the 3th century CE when it got larger they decided to name it Nazareth.

Just last year a town changed it name to "Dish" in order to get free TV service.

Does archaeological evidence showing that there were people living there in 1800 prove that the town of Dish existed in 1800? No.

driver8

If Jesus was a god (perhaps existent from the beginning of time), how would he not know this? Why did he need dreams and spirits to tell him what to do? Why would he fear a man? That's why its obviously allegory.

Mythra

Here is some of the archaeological evidence cited by xians. Certainly reads like unbiased, archaeological proof.

The Nazareth Village Farm

"In November 1996 Stephen Pfann of the Center for the
Study of Early Chistianity identified an ancient wine
press associated with agricultural terraces on the
grounds of Nazareth Hospital and the land adjacent to
it. Potsherds were found on the surface of the terraces
dating from various periods beginning with the early to
late Roman period. An archaeological survey of the
surface of the land adjacent to Nazareth Hospital was
conducted in February by Ross Voss, R. Mikel Rapuano,
Stephen Pfann, and Jan Karnis, all from the Center for
the Study of Early Christianity. Two distinct areas
were identified which are defined by the type of
terracing found there. The first season of Excavation
took place April 22nd until May 6th 1997 under the
auspices of the Center for the Study of Early
Christianity and under the joint directorship of Ross
Voss and Stephen Pfann.

"Area A: A dry farm Location ...

"Area B: An irrigated ³wet² farm. ...

"The ruins of three watchtowers surmount the walls of
three separate terraces.

"Structures: Three watchtowers, agricultural terraces,
possible farmhouse, aqueducts, a threshing floor and
a tomb (all need to be investigated), one column drum
type crushing stone.

"Area C: Another part of the dry farm. ...

"Areas A, B and C in summary The valley along with its
slopes likely comprises the property of a single
family¹s farm which produced a variety of crops. This
includes areas A, B and C. The center of the farm should
be identified with the watchtowers, the terraces and the
water dispersement system. Most of the extent of the
original farm is therefore almost entirely preserved.
This farm remains the most important, and perhaps the
only, witness to the life and livelihoods of the ancient
Nazarenes. It remains today as the last vestiges of
virgin farmland directly connected with the ancient
village of Nazareth.

"The watchtowers which housed staff, animals and equipment
served to protect the nearby crops. It was from here that
the growing crops would be carefully monitored by a family
member, a servant, or a hireling. At the time of harvest
the various families would shelter here from the heat of
midday, and during the evening, the sounds of story-telling,
music and singing could no doubt be heard. The singing of
families in the vineyard resounded on these terraces at the
time of harvest and the music of the flute echoed as the
workers stomped the grapes at the winepress.

"It was here that inquisitive children would play and watch
life on the terraces. It was here that a boy named Jesus
from the village of Nazareth observed life and drew in deep
impressions and images. These images were later brought to
mind as He spoke in parables concerning God¹s relationship
with man and of the great hope of His Kingdom."

http://www.csec.ac.uk/farm.htm

spin

It might be nice if people consulted the archives (RTFA).

The Nazareth issue has been discussed at length here or here or here or here or perhaps here. That should get you all started.


spin

Malachi151

I'm aware of those, I posted in some of them. This is a different thread.

I'm taking the view that Nazareth didn't exist when the gospels were written as a starting point, I'm not debating that.

I'm saying, since Nazareth didn't exist, why does Mark say that Jesus came from there?

Did Mark say he came from there due to some oral tradition? (I don't think so since he doesn't seem to really rely on any potential oral tradition)

Did Mark confuse the Nazarite as meaning someone from a place called Nazareth? (Again I don't think so, because that would be pretty stupid, especially since the Hebrew Bible made it clear that a Nazarite was a sect.)

Did Mark intentionally make up Nazareth based on the term Nazarite in order to reference that Hebrew story about a Nazarite baby, and as a play on words, intentionally creating a mythical home for his character Jesus?

That's my question.

spin

If you were aware of those threads you would know that I argued that Mark never mentions Nazareth at all and that the one reference to Nazareth in the text is an interpolation, given the fact that it's not in the parallel in Matt., and that Mark supplies a hometown for Jesus at Capernaum.

You are also a little too free with deciding that Nazareth didn't exist. This is the sort of thing that various scholars disagree with.


But did Mark say anything about Nazareth?? Mark apparently knew nothing about a reference to Nazirites (note the spelling from Hebrew NZYR).
The writer merely seems to know nazarhnos.


spin