Mathetes

The gnostic Gospel of Philip (dated 180-250 in Kirby's site), says:

...which seems to suggest that the gnostics did not understand "Nazarene" as a gentilic, but as a word with another meaning in itself.

GakuseiDon

I'll be interested in your article on this when it comes out. Out of interest, what are your thoughts on how Nazareth came to be called 'Nazareth'?

Vorkosigan

<howls with laughter> Better get a net to catch all those worms! No, you put your finger on the basic issue that no one can identify. Why did the Man of Nazara become the Man from Nazareth? Here are my notes on Nazareth:

• 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).
  
  Further, the usage of "Nazareth" is apparently untypical of the writer's style. Gundry (1993, p388) notes that in Mark's entire gospel only in v9 does he place a geographical location in a larger context (Nazareth....of Galilee).
  
  Additionally, this is the only use of the word "Nazareth" in Mark; all other usages are a Greek word, nazarhnos, generally translated as "Nazarene." "Nazarene" can mean either a sectarian designation, or "of (the location of) Nazara," but it cannot mean "of Nazareth." How the ending "th" became attached to it is a mystery that no one has yet solved.
  
  Another strike against the presence of "Nazareth" in this verse originally is that the writer of Mark never explains or apologizes for the identification of Nazareth as Jesus' hometown in his gospel (compare Matthew 2:23: "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene'.")
  
  Finally, in Mark 2:1 the writer identifies Capernaum as Jesus' home, not Nazareth. This identification of Capernaum is supported by Matthew 4:13: "Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali--." Why else would Capernaum have appeared here, if Matthew did not understand that Jesus had a home there?

Ted Hoffman

Even Acts and Epiphanius refer to a sect of Nazarenes. The former as early Christians, the latter as non-Christian sect. Epiphanius has been dismissed as a lone and unreliable voice (I have read that he erred many times and never checked his sources scrupulously - some have said he was deriving from Eusebius' list of sects, some think he derived from Hippolytus' sect of Nassenes) and most scholars deny the existence of a pre-Christian sect called Nazarenes - for obvious reasons (against Arthur Drews, G.T. Sadler etc).

Nazarenes in Acts is said to be a derogatory name that was used to refer to early Christians. Most scholars twiddle their fingers over the Acts passage, dither a bit, scratch their heads then declare that the fact that "Nazarene" is derived from Nazareth is an unassailable fact (Erick Schaeder). R.Brown, W.F.Albright, Meier and many NT Scholars share this view.

I think the GPhilip reference lacks authoritativeness and has been largely ignored because of that. Will examine it further.

It appears Nazareth was a (deserted) necropolis in the first cent CE. Jack Finegan's work, J.Reeds work and the Franciscan Monk's work support these. With the burial tombs and the lack of habitation consistent with more than 50 people.

The Necropolis argument fits better with the archaeological findings, the Johannine "What good can come from Nazareth?" (the Jews considered the dead impure and isolated graves/tombs from where people lived).

Archaeology shows that Nazareth may have existed as a village (whose name we do not know) in the 7th cent BCE but was deserted (maybe because of war). And was "reoccupied" in the 2nd cent BCE (Meier, MJ - relying on Meyers and Strange). It appears it was the necropolis for Sepphoris (I want to read more on Jewish burial customs and rites - were lamps used?)

What "refounded" or "reoccupied" (in 2nd ent BC) means is unclear but there is some evidence of human habitation from that period. The important thing is, there is NO evidence that it was a village (however tiny) in the first cent CE. The synagogue mentioned in the Gospels disappeared without trace. There is no evidence of permanent structures. No Roads. No Houses.

Slushy scholarship (Goguel, Meier, Crossan, Reed etc etc) claim that Nazareth was a tiny village not worthy of mention ("conservative Jewish village" according to Strange, "village of trifling importance" according to Goguel, and use this as a reason why the Talmud, Josephus, Paul, and the OT (Joshua) fail to mention it).

But this is an arbitrary and inadequate reason with theological motivations as can be seen from some of the info I present below. They are unwilling to part with the notion that Nazareth existed in the first cent: they are willing to argue that Nazareth was a house, so long as Jesus has an earthly/ historical foothold. As Price would put it in Incredible Shrinking Son of Man parlance, Nazareth has been squeezed to its vanishing point by linguistic, archaeological and philological data. Because, even the gospels reject it (look at Vork's post above and etymological arguments).

These same people (at least Meier, Reed, Arnal and Crossan) fail to recognize that by their figures, Nazareth had at least 1200 people (the figures I gave above were incorrect) - Horsley estimates it at 1600. Klausner, Glomb B. and Y. Kedar , and Jeremias Joachim favour figures close to Josephus' 15,000. Now, where did they all go? Where is their shit? Their bones? Their houses, roads, synagogue, coins? Where?

| Archaeological evidence rules out that 1600 people inhabited Nazareth in 1st cent CE: at best they were a few families: the figures estimated above are calculated based on the size of Nazareth (4 Hectares) and assumption that it was inhabited.

| Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah) [and others I cant remember now] says that Nazareth was one of the Major cities located along the Caravan Route from the Mediterranean sea to Damascus - and hence an important city. This, again, challenges the ideas that Nazareth was a "tiny village" of "trifling importance".

| Nazareth is actually in a valley between hills, yet, acoording to Luke, Nazareth was a city on a hill and had a cliff where Jesus was thrown. There is no cliff near Nazareth so whatever Luke was talking about, has nothing to do with present day Nazareth.

| Luke and Matthew call Nazareth a city - this is inconsistent with archaeological data and the "tiny village" conjectures.

| Origen was a stickler for making sense out of scripture and ridiculed taking things literally when they could not be treated literally (commentary on Matthew and Contra Celsum). He regarded Nazareth as a mythical place representing the Jews.

| The earliest texts (Alexandrian Mark) have No Nazareth AT ALL. The name probably emerged towards the end of the second century, when Matthew's redactor found its phonological proximity to Nazar/Nazir, and a materialist mindset compelled the Christian Redactors to locate Jesus' ministry there - that deserted place. The Johannine embarrasment probably came later.

There is more. In the Paper.
Thanks Vork. Will definitely borrow some of those ideas.

andrewcriddle

When I referred to a pre-Lukan tradition of locating Nazareth by calling it a city (POLIS) in the district of Galilee, I meant that this usage is found in the Birth Narratives of both Matthew and Luke. (And is the only context in which Matthew calls Nazareth a city)

Unless one believes in Matthew being dependent on Luke here then this either a/ goes back to a tradition or source used by both Luke and Matthew or b/ involves use (direct or indirect) of Matthew by Luke.

In either case the usage is pre-Lukan.

Andrew Criddle

Mathetes

My point was not so much to defend what the Gospel of Philip says, which may be dubious, as to point that, at the end of the second century, some Christians still did not seem to understand Nazarene as a gentilic for Nazareth, and they were looking for other explanations. Even when the gospels were supposed to be widespread by then.

GakuseiDon

Would we expect any, though? Not a rhetorical question, btw - I think if we would expect some, and it wasn't there, then it would be an important point.

Yes, but WHEN is the earliest evidence for when the city/village was called "Nazareth", and WHY was it called "Nazareth"? Did a group of Christians settle there, and decide to call it after the reputed birthplace of Jesus (and that in the area traditionally designated as the area Jesus came from - Galilee?) It's possible, but doesn't seem likely. Did a group of priestly families settle there in 2nd C CE, and decided to call it Nazareth, unconnected to Christianity? But then, that seems like a bit of a coincidence.

One question: do we have any competing cities/villages in Israel called Nazareth/Nazara, etc, that claim to be the home of Jesus?

Can you point to where Origen says this? I couldn't find it.

This is what I found when looking for any words starting with "Naza" in the writings of Origen - the very last two are probably the most interesting:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen162.html

For, knowing all things that were to come upon Him, He went forth, and said to them, "Whom seek ye?" and they answered, "Jesus of Nazareth;" and He said unto them, "I am He." And Judas also, who betrayed Him, was standing with them. When, therefore, He had said to them, "I am He," they went backwards and fell to the ground. Again He asked them, "Whom seek ye?" and they said again, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I told you I am He; if then ye seek Me, let these go away."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen167.html

Celsus adds: "Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did--as Moses says--threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite op posed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely?

From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, "the man of Nazareth," did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in regard to riches, when He said, "It is hard for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of God;'' whether we take the word "rich" in its simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense of abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs, "Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is false."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john1.html

Simon and Cleopas too, when talking to each other about all that had happened to Jesus Christ Himself, then risen, though they did not know that He had risen, from the dead, speak thus, "Dost thou sojourn alone in Jerusalem, and knowest not the things which have taken place there in these days? And when he said what things? they answered, The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet, mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to be sentenced to death and crucified Him. But we hoped that it was He which should redeem Israel." Again, Andrew the brother of Simon Peter found his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, Christ." And a little further on Philip finds Nathanael and says to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus the son of Joseph, from Nazareth."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john6.html

John the disciple does not tell us where the Saviour comes from to John the Baptist, but we learn this from Matthew, who writes: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, to be baptized of him." And Mark adds the place in Galilee; he says, "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in Jordan." Luke does not mention the place Jesus came from, but on the other hand he tells us what we do not learn from the others, that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-matthew.html

And observe that it was outside of His own country He speaks the parables "which, when He had finished, He departed thence; and coming into His own country He taught them in their synagogue." And Mark says, "And He came into His own country and His disciples follow Him." We must therefore inquire whether, by the expression, "His own country," is meant Nazareth or Bethlehem,--Nazareth, because of the saying, "He shall be called a Nazarene," or Bethlehem, since in it He was born. And further I reflect whether the Evangelists could have said, "coming to Bethlehem," or, "coming to Nazareth." They have not done so, but have named it "His country," because of something being declared in a mystic sense in the passage about His country,--namely, the whole of Judaea,--in which He was dishonoured according to the saying, "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country." And if anyone thinks of Jesus Christ, "a stumbling-block to the Jews," among whom He is persecuted even until now, but proclaimed among the Gentiles and believed in,--for His word has run over the whole world,--he will see that in His own country Jesus had no honour, hut that among those who were "strangers from the covenants," the Gentiles, He is held in honour.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...en-john10.html

Matthew and Luke represent that he was first at Nazara, and then left them and came and dwelt in Capernaum. Matthew and Mark also state a certain reason why He departed thither, namely, that He had heard that John was cast into prison. The words are as follows: Matthew says, "Then the devil leaveth Him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto Him. But when He heard that John was delivered up, He departed into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth He came and dwelt at Capernaum on the seashore in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali;" and after the quotation from Isaiah: "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mark has the following: "And He was in the desert forty days and forty nights tempted by Satan, and He was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto Him. But after John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe in the Gospel." Then after the narrative about Andrew and Peter and James and John, Mark writes: "And He entered into Capernaum, and straightway on the Sabbath He was teaching in thesynagogue." Luke has, "And having finished the temptation the devil departed from Him for a season. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a fame went out concerning Him into all the region round about, and He taught in their synagogues being glorified of all. And He came to Nazara, where He had been brought up, and He entered as His custom was into the synagogue on the Sabbath day." Then Luke gives what He said at Nazara, and how those in the synagogue were enraged at Him and cast Him out of the city and brought Him to the brow of the hill on which their cities were built, to cast Him down headlong, and how going through the midst of them the Lord went His way; and with this he connects the statement, "And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath day."

Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider that their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about the forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found in any way in John's narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it was that the Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the period of His baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cans of Galilee, then it is clear that the temptation never took place, and that He never was at Nazara, and that John was not yet delivered up.

Now, if we ask when Christ was first in Capernaum, our respondents, if they follow the words of Matthew, and of the other two, will say, After the temptation, when, "leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea." But how can they show both the statements to be true, that of Matthew and Mark, that it was because He heard that John was delivered up that He departed into Galilee, and that of John, found there, after a number of other transactions, subsequent to His stay at Capernaum, after His going to Jerusalem, and His journey from there to Judaea, that John was not yet cast into prison, but was baptizing in AEnon near Salim? There are many other points on which the careful student of the Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree; and these we shall place before the reader, according to our power, as they occur. The student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their truth is not to be sought for in the outward and material letter.

Now if the Lord had not been reported in the other Gospels either as having done or said anything at Capernaum, we might perhaps have hesitated whether this view ought or ought not to be received. But that is far from being the case. Matthew says our Lord left Nazareth and came and dwelt at Capernaum on the seaside, and that from that time He began to preach, saying, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And Mark, starting in his narrative from the temptation by the devil, relates that after John was cast into prison, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the Gospel of God, and after the call of the four fishermen to the Apostleship, "they enter into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath day He taught in the synagogue, and they were astonished at His doctrine." And Mark records an action of Jesus also which took place at Capernaum, for he goes on to say, "In their synagogue there was a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, Ah! what have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us? We know Thee who Thou art, the Son of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace and come out of him; and the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. And they were all amazed." And at Capernaum Simon's mother-in-law is cured of her fever. And Mark adds that when evening was come all those were cured who were sick and who were possessed with demons. Luke's report is very like Mark's about Capernaum. He says, "And He came to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath day, and they were astonished at His teachings, for His word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man having a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, Ah! what have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Hast Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace and come out of him.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, after being left by the devil, and after the angels came and ministered to Him, when He heard that John was delivered up He withdrew into Galilee, and leaving Nazara He came and dwelt in Capernaum.

Matthew has it thus: "At Jesus' entry into Jerusalem the whole city was stirred, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee.

These believe the testimony of John when he says, "Behold the Lamb of God," or they believe in Christ as found by Andrew, or Jesus saying to Philip, "Follow Me," or Philip saying, "We have found Him of whom Moses and the prophets did write, Jesus the Son of Joseph from Nazareth." Those, on the other hand, of whom we now speak, "believed in His name, beholding His signs which He did." And as they believe the signs and not in Him but in His name, Jesus "did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, because He knew what is in every man."

--------------------------------

Origen MAY be talking about Nazareth in a mystical sense, but it is hard to see that reflected in his writings. He talks about Judea in a mystical sense as "His country". We can be certain that Origen regarded Judea as an actual place. But there is nothing there at all to indicate that Origen in any way regarded Nazareth as a place that didn't exist, AFAICS.

GakuseiDon

"Towards the end of the second century"? Yet Justin Martyr, writing in his "Dialogue with Trypho" around 150-160 CE, refers to "Nazareth" as the home of Joseph and Jesus.

So, however the association to Jesus came about, it must have started closer to the start of the 2nd C CE rather than the end.

The Gnostic Library entry for Marcion has Marcion refer to Nazareth in his "Gospel of the Lord" in 130 CE - I'm not sure how reliable this is, though.
http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/marcion.htm

(Ed. to add: Good article so far, btw, Ted, even though I'm being a bit nitpicky - looking forward to seeing the completed version).

Ted Hoffman

Yes we would. Luke says there was a synagogue. We expect some permanent structures (houses, wells) some coins, pottery, maybe some paved roads...
Earliest evidence is a marble incription dated between the third and fourth century.
Why is unclear (Why is Sepphoris called Sepphoris?, why is Japha called Japha?).

It is possible that it the necropolis (for Sepphoris - a Jewish city) was always called Nazareth then when the early Christians could not locate Nazir (or whatever form of "Naz" that was there), they decided that the evangelists made a mistake and they then redacted the Gospels to reflect Nazareth.
No.

Homily 33:1
"Insofar as Luke's narrative is concerned, Jesus has not yet stayed in Capernaum. Nor is he said to have performed any sign in that place, because he had not been there. Before he comes to Capernaum, it is recorded that he was in his native territory, that is, in Nazareth. He says to his fellow-citizens, "Doubtless you will quote me saying this: 'Physician, cure yourself. Do here, too, in your native territory, whatever we heard was done in Capernaum.'" For this reason, I think that some mystery is hidden in this passage before us. Capernaum, a type of the Gentiles, takes precedence over Nazareth, a type of the Jews. Jesus knew that he had no honor in his own native territory--neither he, nor the prophets, nor the apostles. So he was unwilling to preach there. Instead, he preached among the Gentiles, so that the people of his native territory would not say to him, "Doubtless you will quote me this saying: 'Physician, cure yourself.'"

Based on this, Nazareth probaby found its way into the Gospels in the first half of the second century.

Thank you. Nitpicking is good. I hope when I post it, your swords will be sharp and ready.
What happened to your review of The Jesus Puzzle?

GakuseiDon

If that is the case, then I'd say "case closed" as far as I'm concerned. Then again, it depends on what you are trying to show: (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.

If (1) is true, then (2) can't be true. But the reverse is not the case. Nazareth could still have existed at that time as a small town, with no synagogue or paved roads, to which Jesus had His name attached in the Gospels. Or maybe there was no synagogue or paved roads, but Jesus came from there anyway, and the synagogue story was added later.

Yes, it is possible. So then, there MAY have been a Nazareth, just not the Nazareth of the Gospels. Jesus could have still come from families dwelling near by. (I'm not arguing for this, just that it is as likely as anything else, AFAICS)

I cannot find this in earlychristianwritings. Do you have a link to it?

Even so, the passage doesn't seem to be saying anything about Nazareth not being an actual place. It makes much the same point as in his commentary on Matthew.

But did the town of Nazareth exist at that time, or not? Earlier, you suggested that Nazareth may have existed, as a necropolis. There do seem to be some coincidences here:

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

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. 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.

Still planning to do it, though it is more of a critique of Doherty's use of the 2nd C CE apologists. I don't have the knowledge to review Doherty's use of Paul.