Amaleq13

spin has shown, in the most recent thread on the subject of Jesus' birthplace, that the Gospels are all the evidence against Nazareth one needs.

At least that is my understanding of his depiction of the linguistic evidence. Whether the village existed during the early 1st century is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that Jesus isn't connected with "Nazareth" in the first Gospel story but with a different word (which one and what it meant is less clear) that seems to have been mistranslated as a hometown by later authors.

GakuseiDon

My interest isn't so much in whether it was "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus of Nazareth".

I sometimes see people claim that there is no evidence that there was a Nazareth in the time of Jesus, but there are two pieces of evidence usually cited. Are those two pieces of evidence actually real, or were they made up? That is what I'd like to know. Is there evidence in fact that there WAS a Nazareth existing in the time Jesus was supposed to have existed?

Amaleq13

If you dig up the earlier thread on Jesus' birthplace, Toto provided links to even earlier discussions on the subject. IIRC, the evidence was not conclusive. There is evidence for a village in that location much earlier and evidence for a village in that location a bit later (i.e. after 70CE) but nothing substantive for the actual time in question. As one post from Toto's links pointed out, what we don't have is any evidence that this village was called "Nazareth" throughout its existence.

I'm not sure why you would focus on this given the linguistic Gospel evidence that it is a misunderstanding by later rewrites of Mark. Whether or not a village named "Nazareth" existed in the early 1st century, we appear to have good reason to doubt he was ever connected with it during his lifetime.

spin

The late Franciscan father Bellarmino Bagatti had the fortune of excavating what he could of Nazareth and what that was turned out merely to have been burial caves, starting, from memory, in the second century. Now the assumption is that where there are burials there were villages. I guess it couldn't have been seasonal workers.


spin

GakuseiDon

It's simply because I've sometimes seen the claim that there was no Nazareth in the time of Jesus. Connecting Jesus to it is a different issue.

If there was evidence of a village on that site in that location earlier, and evidence for a village called "Nazareth" afterwards, that to me indicates that there is evidence, though perhaps not conclusive.

Peter Kirby

Acts 10:38. Jesus who [was] of Nazareth: (Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ) how God anointed him with [the] Holy Spirit and with power; who went through [all quarters] doing good, and healing all that were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

best,
Peter Kirby

spin

No, there is no evidence for a Nazareth during the period. The best that has been done is show that there were burials in the area.

However, this doesn't mean that there was no Nazareth.


spin

Bill

Peter:

Can you discuss the arguments for and against the idea that it is "Jesus the Nazorite" (a taker of the Nazorite oath) who is being referred to rather than a town (Nazareth) which might not have existed at the time Jesus was alive?

Peter Kirby

I don't have the time/inclination. I can offer a list of the NT references that I compiled a while back (quotations from Darby).

Matthew 2:23. and came and dwelt in a town called Nazareth; so that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazaraean.

Matthew 4:13. and having left Nazareth, he went and dwelt at Capernaum, which is on the sea-side in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthalim,

Matthew 21:11. And the crowds said, This is Jesus the prophet who is from Nazareth of Galilee.

Matthew 26:71. And when he had gone out into the entrance, another [maid] saw him, and says to those there, This [man] also was with Jesus the Nazaraean.

Mark 1:9. And it came to pass in those days [that] Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, (ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας) and was baptised by John at the Jordan.

Mark 1:24. saying, Eh! what have we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God.

Mark 10:47. And having heard that it was Jesus the Nazaraean, he began to cry out and to say, O Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.

Luke 1:26. But in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent of God to a city of Galilee, of which [the] name [was] Nazareth,

Luke 2:4. and Joseph also went up from Galilee out of the city Nazareth to Judaea, to David's city, the which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,

Luke 2:39. And when they had completed all things according to the law of [the] Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own city Nazareth.

Luke 2:51. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and he was in subjection to them. And his mother kept all these things in her heart.

Luke 4:16. And he came to Nazareth (Ναζαρά), where he was brought up; and he entered, according to his custom, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read.

Luke 4:34. saying, Eh! what have we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene? (Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ) hast thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy [One] of God.

Luke 18:37. And they told him that Jesus the Nazaraean (Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραιος) was passing by.

John 1:45-46. Philip finds Nathanael, and says to him, We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him, Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip says to him, Come and see.

John 18:5-7. They answered him, Jesus the Nazaraean. Jesus says to them, I am [he]. And Judas also, who delivered him up, stood with them. When therefore he said to them, I am [he], they went away backward and fell to the ground. He demanded of them therefore again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus the Nazaraean.

John 19:19. And Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the cross. But there was written: Jesus the Nazaraean, the King of the Jews.

Acts 2:22. Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazaraean, (Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον) a man borne witness to by God to you by works of power and wonders and signs, which God wrought by him in your midst, as yourselves know

Acts 3:6. But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but what I have, this give I to thee: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazaraean (ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραιου) rise up and walk.

Acts 4:10. be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazaraean, (ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραιου) whom ye have crucified, whom God has raised from among [the] dead, by *him* this [man] stands here before you sound [in body].

Acts 6:14. for we have heard him saying, This Jesus the Nazaraean (Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος) shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses taught us.

Acts 10:38. Jesus who [was] of Nazareth: (Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ) how God anointed him with [the] Holy Spirit and with power; who went through [all quarters] doing good, and healing all that were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Acts 24:5. "For finding this man [Paul] a pest, and moving sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a leader of the sect of the Nazaraeans." (τῶν Ναζωραίων)

Acts 26:9. I indeed myself thought that I ought to do much against the name of Jesus the Nazaraean. (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου)

Hope this helps,
Peter Kirby

spin

Bill,

There is no transparent connection between <Grk>Nazwraios</> (used in all texts other than Mk and with one exception in Lk) and Nazirite, note the "i" -- the spelling you have is xian obfuscation. One needs to account for an omega in Nazwraios. A connection can be made though.

On to Peter's data:

Note, this is nazwraios.

This is Nazara in the Alexandrian text (Westcott & Hort) and should be taken as more likely to be original because of its difficulty to explain. (See Lk 4:16 as well.)

In the Mt parallel there is only <Grk>apo ths Galilaias</> (no Nazareth), where one would expect, if Mt had contracted the reference from Mk, only <Grk>apo Nazaret</>, having already introduced both Galilee and Narazeth earlier (2:22-23). There is a strong case that Nazareth has been insinuated into the text by a later scribe.

This like all the others in the Alexandrian text of Mk is Nazarhnos. Again the difficult text is the more likely. Hence,

This is probably scribal intervention as well in the Western text. Alexandrian has Nazarhnos, which only appears in Mk and Lk 4:34 (= Mk 1:24).

And so ends the Lucan use of Nazareth... only in the birth narrative.


spin