Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mdarus · 03-10-2006, 09:18 AM

Here is the Galilee link again in Isaiah 9:

Quote:

1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death [a]
a light has dawned.

3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as men rejoice
when dividing the plunder.

4 For as in the day of Midian's defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.

5 Every warrior's boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [b] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

jjramsey · 03-10-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Why could "nothing good" come from Nazareth?

Because it's a small village that would be seen as a poor hick town.

Amaleq13 · 03-10-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Because it's a small village that would be seen as a poor hick town.

As opposed to the booming metropolis of Bethlehem?

IMO, mdarus has offered a much more credible reason to dismiss any Galilean town though it does not negate the obvious association with Judas' failed rebellion.

jjramsey · 03-10-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

As opposed to the booming metropolis of Bethlehem?

Bethlehem had the compensation of being in an OT prophecy. Nazareth, not so much (unless one really stretched). But, yes, here mdarus has a point.

Buster Daily · 03-10-2006, 10:22 AM

Thanks for the opinions. After reading all of the replies I have come to the conclusion that it might have been important for Jesus to have come from Nazareth which, of course, is in Galilee. I think it might have been believed by tradition that being from Nazareth (a Nazarene) fulfilled OT prophesy. The author of Matthew obviously claimed this. The other authors might have believed this as well or maybe they were just following the tradition of where Jesus was from based on an earlier notion of fulfilled prophesy. Does anyone have opinions on this? Was the author of Matthew seeing something that others would have seen or was he smoking something?

Of course it's possible that a man from Nazareth did exist and formed the basis for the gospel Jesus. That's the whole point of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. Without a good reason to place Jesus in Galilee/Nazareth this conclusion becomes more likely.

jjramsey · 03-10-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

Thanks for the opinions. After reading all of the replies I have come to the conclusion that it might have been important for Jesus to have come from Nazareth which, of course, is in Galilee. I think it might have been believed by tradition that being from Nazareth (a Nazarene) fulfilled OT prophesy. The author of Matthew obviously claimed this.

Matthew certainly claimed this, but there is no prophecy in the OT about Nazareth or Nazarenes. There is prophecy about a Branch of Righteousness, and "branch" in Hebrew is NZR. That, however, is the kind of prophecy that one would find if one was looking for a reference to Nazareth to begin with. Bethlehem, on the other hand, is explicitly referenced in the OT. Whether it is really a reference to the town of Bethlehem that is 6 miles from Judea is, IIRC, another matter, but it would be easy to read Micah 5:2-3 as if it was.

Buster Daily · 03-10-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarus

Here is one hint. Nazareth, of course, is a town in the region called Galilee.

Quote:

10 At the end of twenty years, during which Solomon built these two buildings—the temple of the LORD and the royal palace- 11 King Solomon gave twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram king of Tyre, because Hiram had supplied him with all the cedar and pine and gold he wanted. 12 But when Hiram went from Tyre to see the towns that Solomon had given him, he was not pleased with them. 13 "What kind of towns are these you have given me, my brother?" he asked. And he called them the Land of Cabul, [c] a name they have to this day.
[c] 1 Kings 9:13 Cabul sounds like the Hebrew for good-for-nothing .

The reputation seems to have stuck.

Is this an anachronism? When did Galilee become a region? While we are at it, when did Samaria become a region? I would have assumed Assyrian, Selucid, or Roman origins. Help a brother out.

Buster Daily · 03-10-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Matthew certainly claimed this, but there is no prophecy in the OT about Nazareth or Nazarenes. There is prophecy about a Branch of Righteousness, and "branch" in Hebrew is NZR. That, however, is the kind of prophecy that one would find if one was looking for a reference to Nazareth to begin with. Bethlehem, on the other hand, is explicitly referenced in the OT. Whether it is really a reference to the town of Bethlehem that is 6 miles from Judea is, IIRC, another matter, but it would be easy to read Micah 5:2-3 as if it was.

Yeppers. So it is your opinion that only Matthew could have seen this as phrophetic fulfillment. Does anyone else agree with this? If this is the consensus then we should conclude one of the following:

A) Jesus of gospels is derived all or in part from a real person from Nazareth
B) Nazareth was chosen at random
C) Nazareth is somehow a good choice from a story telling standpoint

If B and C are weak (which I am not yet asserting), this strengthens A

jjramsey · 03-10-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

Yeppers. So it is your opinion that only Matthew could have seen this as phrophetic fulfillment.

It is my opinion that the only way one could see Nazareth in the OT is to already have Nazareth in mind and look for a prophecy that could be stretched as an allusion to Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

A) Jesus of gospels is derived all or in part from a real person from Nazareth
B) Nazareth was chosen at random
C) Nazareth is somehow a good choice from a story telling standpoint

If B and C are weak (which I am not yet asserting), this strengthens A

B is definitely weak. C is too ambiguous; it depends on what you mean by "story telling standpoint," and that may not conflict with A depending on how you mean it.

Amaleq13 · 03-10-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

Yeppers. So it is your opinion that only Matthew could have seen this as phrophetic fulfillment. Does anyone else agree with this? If this is the consensus then we should conclude one of the following:

A) Jesus of gospels is derived all or in part from a real person from Nazareth
B) Nazareth was chosen at random
C) Nazareth is somehow a good choice from a story telling standpoint

If B and C are weak (which I am not yet asserting), this strengthens A

Just to make it interesting:

D) Nazareth was chosen because that was where the first Apostles lived and where they first claimed to have had the risen Christ appear to them.

E) Nazareth was chosen because that was where Mark's author and his readers lived.

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

03-10-2006, 10:22 AM	#25
Buster Daily Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 119	Thanks for the opinions. After reading all of the replies I have come to the conclusion that it might have been important for Jesus to have come from Nazareth which, of course, is in Galilee. I think it might have been believed by tradition that being from Nazareth (a Nazarene) fulfilled OT prophesy. The author of Matthew obviously claimed this. The other authors might have believed this as well or maybe they were just following the tradition of where Jesus was from based on an earlier notion of fulfilled prophesy. Does anyone have opinions on this? Was the author of Matthew seeing something that others would have seen or was he smoking something? Of course it's possible that a man from Nazareth did exist and formed the basis for the gospel Jesus. That's the whole point of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. Without a good reason to place Jesus in Galilee/Nazareth this conclusion becomes more likely.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.