Chili

Many are called "manna" for some reason but not because manna is the bread from heaven because it is not, never was and never will be.

spamandham

....except to those who really want to know if it existed or not. I find the idea interesting independent of it's consequences to Jesus, and would really like to know whether Nazareth was 'the town that theology built' or not.

I don't need Jesus to be pure myth to know that I can sleep in on Sundays and save 10%.

spin

Bloody idlers.

What about Capernaum?

Now that made sense... ... ...


spin

ApostateAbe

Since I don't know enough about Greek to evaluate your argument about the variations of "Nazara" and so on, I default to the standard translations. Your argument could very well be right, but, until I have the same knowledge in Greek that you have, I can't just take your word for it. I have to rely on the consensus of secular experts on the matter.

I shouldn't have used the word, "lie." I should have used the word, "speak falsehoods," which includes delusions and gullibility and misunderstandings and so on, because not all false myths originate as lies, maybe not even most of them. If you object to that, too, then I am sorry that I don't know the substance of your objection.

spin

I cited the relevant texts for a reason. Look at the RSV or NRSV or some modern relatively literal translation and you'll see that it has Nazara in both Mt 4:13 and Lk 4:16. All you have to do there is look. As to My 2:23 the earliest manuscript we have has Nazara (P70). Look for one example of Nazareth in Luke that is outside the birth narrative: nothing, nada, zippo. People are too busy not looking at the data.

So you close your eyes and trust the people who sold you out not to do it again.

Using terms like "lie" and "speaking falsehood" can only muddy the waters. It is sufficient that a believer trusted commonly accepted ideas and reproduce them.

When you return to your original statement

Weird that he would claim that there is "no evidence that Jesus was ever in Nazareth or in Bethlehem." Christian authors would have reason to lie about Bethlehem, but not about Nazareth, an insignificant backwoods town that hardly anybody ever heard about (and embarrassing if they did).

you find that there is nothing you can salvage from it because it's content melts away. You can't comment about Nazareth. You didn't mean "lie". Your assumptions have no substance. Pooof.

Try withholding judgment on these things. You don't need to have a definitive position on them. But you seem to belt away at the same basic view most times you post. Let me repeat, Jesus is no longer someone you have to have a decisive view about. You are free of that all.


spin

Chili

I should add here that it once was bread from heaven but not when it is second to them.

ApostateAbe

That is a good point, spin. I have been talking as though I have a position about Jesus that has been set in stone, but that is not the appropriate language. I should be talking in terms of probability, which matches my own principles more accurately. I know I can learn useful things from you on this subject. How do you find out what the earliest manuscripts say for Mark 1:9? The source I use (The Unbound Bible) has "ναζαρετ της γαλιλαιας." What do the earliest texts say?

spin

We don't have such an early text for this part of Mark as P70 for Matthew, but had Nazareth been there in the source that Matthew had, don't you think the Matthean text would have had it in 3:13? Instead of απο ναζαρετ της γαλιλαιας it simply has απο της γαλιλαιας. As the town is more natural for origin of a person in Jewish circles, it's difficult to imagine the Matthean writer choosing the area and omitting the town. As I said it's not part of the synoptic traditions, ie it's not shared between the gospels. Both the Matthean and Lucan traditions would go on to use Nazara, which makes no sense had Nazareth already been available. Nazara is a lectio difficilior as the tradition went on to support Nazareth, so it is harder to explain had it been later than Nazareth. The available evidence points to Mk 1:9's Nazareth being a later scribal clarification through the simple addition of the stabilized form ναζαρετ into what was available to Matthew, ie απο της γαλιλαιας. And, before you start crying "lie" or "falsehood", surely you can see that it would have been a logical clarification for the later scribe to make: Nazareth is not (directly) mentioned anywhere else in the gospel and Mk 1:9 would be the nearest thing to a provenance for the scribe. It's such a simple thing to clarify here.


spin

neilgodfrey

I'm surprised not to have seen any reference to Rene Salm's comment and link to the Israel Antiquities Authority public statement about this -- or have I just missed them here?

spamandham

I guess I've never seen a case made that Capernaum didn't exist in the 1st century. :huh: