Diogenes the Cynic

That's not an example of multiple attestation. Multiple attestation means that more than one source says (independently) the same thing, not that a single source says lots of people saw something. Any one source can lie, but the odds that more than one source will tell independently tell the SAME lie are much smaller.

Surely you know this. You've been a regular here forever.

dog-on

Abe, apart from the biblical story, what relevant external evidence do you have with which to resolve the Nazareth question?

I would hope that after thinking about this, a bit, you may understand Doug's earlier comment, which made me laugh.

ApostateAbe

Other explanations would be plausible only if they fit the patterns of known history. There are many alternative explanations for "Nazareth," but they do not seem to fit the known patterns. Tell me the explanation that you prefer, and I will explain further.

ApostateAbe

Sorry. I took your inquiry to be more general. The criteria that I would be applying in this case are mainly the criteria of dissimilarity, explanatory scope, and plausibility.

The criterion of dissimilarity applies in that we have a very discernable early Christian interest that Jesus should have been from a town that fulfills Jewish prophecy, and Nazareth does NOT fulfill that wish (unless Christians such as the community of Matthew make up the prophecy from whole cloth). Bethlehem would fulfill that wish in the minds of Christians, but not Nazareth.

The criterion of explanatory scope applies because Nazareth is located in a rural region and Galilee, which fits the general geographical theme of Jesus (from Galilee), his baptizer (Jordan River), and his disciples (Galileans). The backwoods nature of the town explains the many misspellings of the town in all of the gospels.

The criterion plausibility applies because the town of Nazareth historically existed in the same time period as Jesus, and we know that cult founders can be born and raised just about anywhere. The explanation demands nothing that is historically unusual. We know that thousands of small towns were omitted from the textual historical record. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Nazareth did not exist--at the time it was attested by the myth and being founded only later by being inspired by the myth--does not have any close historical comparison.
I know what the writers believed or did not believe by reading their writings. For example, read Luke 1:1-4.
Sorry, no, and I don't know what would give you that idea.

hjalti

Matthew didn't leave out the passage, he has it, just not "Nazareth". So it probably was originally just "from Galilee" and not "from Nazareth of Galilee"

The evidence would be 1) the strange omission of Matthew* 2) The use of Nazarene in Mk seems not to refer to a geographical location 3) The otherwise late appearance of Nazareth, which you see very well in Luke.

*I've got a commentary on Mt and looked it up: "It is strange that Matthew omits Mark’s reference to Nazareth (Mark 1:9)." Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, Matthew 1-13

Yes, that's exactly what I said! /sarcasm

It's surprising that you don't know what I mean, since this is what spin was pointing out to you in the other thread.

But the Lukan passages you cite have: Nazara, nazorean and nazorean. And I think Acts is a later composition than the original Luke (that is Lk without e.g. the birth narrative).

aspronot

It has already been discussed by others earlier in this thread. You rejected it almost out of hand. What we don't see you do is identify a number of possible explanations and then carefully detail why one in particular is more plausible than the others. That's what we would expect of someone who professes to follow the methodology you have outlined for us. Instead you seem to invariably take the mainstream position and pour cold water on alternative hypotheses.

Here's an example:

That's it. Abe has concluded. Therefore it is settled.

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks, that is a good point. Do you think it is also a fitting explanation that Matthew may have left out "Nazareth" because he wanted to rewrite the hometown of Jesus to be Bethlehem instead of Nazareth?
Sorry, what is your argument, exactly? I was trying to get a handle on your argument, but it can be difficult to tease it out from the sarcasm. You said:

What did you mean by that? What is your argument?

Yeah, spin can also be difficult to understand. Are you saying that the only place in Luke where a certain spelling of "Nazareth" is found is in the birth narrative, and the other instances of the name in Luke contain other variations? I would just like to know how you make your judgment that "Luke doesn't seem to know anything about Nazareth." I treat those variant spellings as referring to the same thing. How do you think of them?

ApostateAbe

I am very much offended. You left out a relevant portion of my quote that disproves what you are saying about me. Here is the more complete version:

I think any methodology for historical conclusions would work in this case, but of course I prefer Argument for the Best Explanation. The hypothesis that Nazareth existed is superior in the criteria of explanatory scope, plausibility, and less ad hoc. We don't have many examples of towns being founded post hoc inspired by a mere myth of a town, but we have very many historical small towns being omitted in all historical writings.

I am trying to be helpful. If you are just trying to make me look like a dogmatist at the expense of the truth, then you can just get lost.

aspronot

I haven't the time to answer this entire post fully tonight but I can't let this part above pass. Amazing, unless I misunderstand you. Isn't Matthew having his cake and eating it too? Unlike Mark, his zeal has Jesus being both from Bethlehem (born there) and from Nazareth (raised there) so he could be called a Nazarene. Mt 2:23. Your argument seems to be that Mark didn't think to go that far (with the unbelievable Egyptian escapade for yet a 3rd prophecy fulfillment), Mark and Matthew are dissimilar, therefore we should accept the story about Nazareth. Astounding logic. The purpose of Nazareth is quite clear as Mt 2:23 points out; it is a reference back to a Samson-like figure who will deliver Israel from its enemies. You can seemingly accept that Bethlehem is shoe-horned in for for prophecy purposes, but you can't see it for Nazareth?

I don't know where you get your "discernible early Christian interest" from. On the one hand you seem to be hinting that the gospels were written to order based on demand, ie. by the early Christian audience (which casts doubts on the credibility of your earlier reasoning concerning the relatively faithful recording of myths). On the other hand, you accept Nazareth because Mark presumably chose (?) not to humour his audience and bring in Bethlehem as well. :huh:

ApostateAbe

I think I should explain further. It is not about a dissimilarity between Matthew and Mark. It is about a dissimilarity between the claims of Christians and their apparent interests. The formulation of the criterion of dissimilarity is that: if the claim is dissimilar to the known interests of the author, then the claim is more likely to be accurate. Conversely, if the claim is similar to a known interest of the author, then the claim is less likely to be accurate. Early Christians had a known interest in Jesus being from Bethlehem, since they interpreted a known Jewish prophecy as predicting that the messiah should be descended from Bethlehem. But they did NOT have an interest in Jesus in being from Nazareth. The community of Matthew made up the prophecy to fit the known fact about Jesus. How do we know? Because it is not contained in any extant or externally-attested Jewish writing (the proposed connection to Samson is a very loose fit when the texts are closely examined), Matthew does not specify the prophet, none of the other Christian writings place prophetic significance on Nazareth, and there have been many Jewish messianic claimants and their cults throughout history and none of them claim any connection to Nazareth. The only plausible interest that Christians had in claiming that Jesus was from Nazareth is that it was a known fact that Jesus really was from Nazareth. Therefore, Jesus really was from Nazareth.