Solo

An interesting essay by Bruce Chilton: it could be that J. was known as "son of Mary" in his home town (Mk 6:3), because Joe was long dead then, but with (Jn 8:41) can one dispute too far what "Chilton" calls the "tolerance" of NT to the charge of Jesus illegitimate birth ? Worth looking into if you (like me) have been unaware that there was a village called "Bethlehem" just a few miles from Nazareth:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...esus_Birth.htm

Jiri

spin

Then whose children were James, Joses, et al., I wonder?


spin

Solo

Mark does not tell, and the church later had all sorts of explanations. I don't have one.

The thing that is interesting to me is that the later Talmudic smears on Mary (ben Stada created likely from S'tath da "she went astray", Panthera being just a notch too clever play on parthenos), don't have to be derived wholly from the pious declaration of Mary as virgin mother. That story itself could have partially drawn on tradition of paternal irregularity in Jesus' birth.
The way to read this, through John, is that once the "virgin" tradition began to circulate, it provoked cynicism and derision from non-believers and John decided that it was not worth the trouble. The Nicodemus story appears to be his counter-argument to literal virgin birth.

Jiri

Doug Shaver

I think theories like that are trying too hard to prove the gospels to be naturalistically inerrant.

Naturalistic inerrancy is what I've decided to call the proposition that the gospels are without error except when they report miracles.

Solo

I suspect that when you say "are without error", you mean to say, "have a historical kernel". Inerrancy does not come to play in the birth stories. The challenge here is that all four gospels, whether intentionally or not, cast doubt on Jesus' paternity. Two (Matthew and Luke) deal with it by declaring a miracle, one by staying silent on it (Mark), and one (John) by assignation of paternity. In this setting, it makes sense to inquire whether the "virgin birth" would (also) be a convenient "cover" for Jesus' reported mamzerut rather than it being merely a reaction to a mythical conception.

Jiri

3DJay

A few miles from Nazareth? Prove Nazareth existed, at the time Jesus supposedly did.

Nazareth - The Town That Theology Built


Peace

Doug Shaver

I mean to say that the people I'm referring to treat the gospels as if they were factually accurate except for the miracles.

Assuming that the authors believed what they wrote, how does saying he was born of a virgin constitute an expression of doubt about his paternity?

How does that constitute an expression of doubt?

If he assigns paternity, where is the doubt being expressed?

Maybe. If there ever was such a report during his lifetime.

Assuming, of course (which I'm not), that he actually had a lifetime.

Solo

He admits the view that Jesus was born of fornication. Moreover, Jesus does not deny it (as he denies "having a demon" in 8:49).

Jiri

Doug Shaver

Chapter and verse, please?

Nazaroo

Well, taking a closer look at this webpage is a bit disappointing.

He is probably right that there was no ancient 'Nazareth' on the current popular site.

And it seems self-evident that Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene is a corruption or confusion of some sect that practiced the Nazarite vow. Plenty of biblical support for this plausible case. Jesus was probably a Nazarite like His cousin(!) John the Baptist.

Jesus' apparent cavorting with the 'unclean' is just the sort of shocking attention grabber that would only have significance with the background of a Nazarite vow.

But the site-author overdoes it in attempting to crap all over every Christian tradition. The case is strained by the service he is trying to force it into.

Mark's mention of Nazareth, and Luke's later emphasis of it, and finally Matthew's attempt to invent a prophecy fulfillment are just dismissed with the usual
What crap. Everytime some critic finds primitive evidence in contradition to his pet theory, its a convenient 'interpolation'.

But the fact is, Mark's terse and unimportant anecdotal historical observation appears primitive here. Luke takes it and interprets, embellishes. This is exactly what we would expect Luke to do with Mark here. And Matthew, coming in last (as the later Church/Jewish syncretistic production) does what we expect him to do too: invent a prophecy fulfilled.

The behaviour of Luke and Matthew only makes sense if Mark is the seed egging them on as usual.

Interpolation my ass.

So what we really have is an inconvenient early reference by Mark to Jesus' home turf. It doesn't matter if Mark got it wrong, which is obviously possible. Whether or not Mark garbled, downplayed or obscurantized the Nazarite tradition is irrelevant. The fact is, he leads both Luke and Matthew up a tree, and not the other way around.

But Luke, who at least attempts to supply geographical details, clearly shows the present-day Nazareth is impossible as the location, if Luke's tradition has historical roots.
This is a valuable observation. Luke's tradition here must be based upon a different geographical location.

Why spoil the argument against Nazareth by exaggerating the plain and simple evidence?

Jesus was a Nazarene (Nazarite) who offended His community on several occasions, sparking attempts to toss Him off of cliffs, which are conveniently located to the South-East along the Dead Sea and surrounding valleys there, where probably there were many 'Nazarene'/Essene - like communities, perhaps as far North as Masada.

Its a no-brainer.