Ted Hoffman

Vork
I am not persuaded. Nazareth and Gennesareth seem worlds apart - even phonologically.

AC,
I would replace "true" in your statement with "putative". Almost "unanimous" implies a consensus that was inexistent before is almost obtained. This is not the case. No clear effort has been made to address the problems surrounding Nazareth. I have come accross early scholars like E. Schaeder making decrees on the matter.

In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, for example, Schaeder writes: “the understanding of Nazwraois as a rendering of nasraje, derived from the name of the city of Nazareth (Aram.nasrat), is linguistically and materially unassailable.�

This is a fiat. You dont obtain unanimity through this approach.

It is *not* almost unanimously accepted. I bet Bultmann never accepted it (in Kerygma and Myth, he writes that the geography of the NT is mythical). In fact, even Meier, in MJ, p301 writes that "the modern town of Nazareth most probably preserves the location of ancient Nazareth". 'Most probably' indicates a degree of uncertainty attached to this claim.

And his *most probably* is hanging on a very thin thread: Nazareth having no rival. Lack of rivalry, of course, is not much in the face of Luke talking about cliffs and synagogues that did not exist and it does nothing to address the linguistic, archeological and textual problems facing Nazareth's status in the first century.

Let me go back to the 'unanimously accepted' business.

a) Several scholars have disputed that Nazareth actually existed as an actual place at the time of Jesus (W. B. Smith, A. Drews and G.T. Sadler, T.K. Cheyne etc etc - maybe I should just compile a list).

b) Nobody knows what Nazareth was in the first century (small city? hamlet? isolated town? necropolis? what population it had, and how many hectares it covered.

Crossan, Reed, Finegan, William E. Arnal, Meyers and Strange, Goguel, Wellhausen etc, claim, arbitrarily, that Nazareth was a small hamlet. I have challenged their arguments elsewhere. [NB: I use the word 'arbitrarily' to characterize their conclusions because it is clear to me that they made no effort to exhaustively examine alternative explanations for the paucity of the archaological evidence and for geographical inconsistencies like Luke's cliff]

Against the above is Richard Horsley, F.F. Bruce, A. Edersheim, Dalman Gustav, Golomb B. and Y. Kedar, J. Klausner and others who, for various reasons do not agree that Nazareth was small, isolated or little known place.

If they don't know what it was, how can they be unanimous on its location? Remember, the "small hamlet" proponents are talking about 4 hectares. That is a population of less than 400 people. What will you do with Golomb B. and Y. Kedar, Klausner and Jeoachim Jeremias' estimates of close to 15,000 people?

In my study, I have learnt that most scholars are just doing guesswork. Guesswork regarding the kind of houses the people there built, regarding the influence of Nazareth being close to the road from the Mediterranean to Damascus etc etc. There are scholars who agree with Josephus' population of 15,000, some have a population of 1600-2000 or so and then recent scholarship are down to 200 people or a few families. Its chaotic and scholars are making arguments that zig against those that zag.

Consensus would be the last thing on my mind when it comes to the question of Nazareth. And even if there was, I doubt that it would mean much. There is, for example, near consensus that a HJ existed.

[digress]In my study, it has been very interesting to see the tension between the apologetics of Crossan and Meier. For example J.P. Meier states that “Nazareth was not a totally isolated village� MJ, p301 and when reading MJ, the reader asks themselves "who said that it was?" Informed readers will whisper "Crossan". Just like in tHJ, Crossan says that, in HJ scholarship, it has become difficult to draw the line between theology and scholarship. Meier elsewhere says those who think they are actually doing scholarship in HJ studies are actually deluding themselves. [/digress].

It is important to note that Mark never had Nazareth as Jesus' hometown or as anything for that matter. Neither did Paul. This means that the earliest traditions of Jesus do not have [Jesus of] Nazareth at all. And you cannot get Nazareth from Nazarhnos.

Before the 17th century, the place called Nazareth today was not bearing the same name - I can't remember the exact name but it was something like 'Ha Naza' - will look up in my notes (I dug this from one old book of the 18 century).

I understand Napoleon camped there during the Battle of Mount Tabor (1799). Is there a historical source that narrates these battles and that gives the name of the place that is today called Nazareth as it was called then? Or is this Christian propaganda aimed at claiming that Napoleon's victory in the battle had something to do with him setting foot on the 'holy place'?

andrewcriddle

What I mainly meant by 'almost unanimously accepted' is that AFAIK there have been practically no claims of the form 'yes there was a historical Nazareth but it was somewhere else'

IF as the Hebrew inscription at Caesarea seems to suggest there was a place in Galilee continuously called Nazareth from at least the 2nd century CE to the 4th century CE, then it seems probable that the current location corresponds to that site.

Otherwise one would have expected controversy between 2 places each claiming to be the 'real Nazareth'.

Andrew Criddle

spin

This may point to Nazareth being a late addition to the geography of the gospels. Remember that Marcion apparently didn't know about Nazareth, having his Jesus come down to Capernaum, where Mark believed Jesus lived.


spin

Ted Hoffman

I am beginning to think its time some experts looked at this Caesarea Maritima marble closely. Altman should be part of that group of experts. In what language was it written? Who dated it? Why would anybody be interested in inscribing, in marble, that "the eighteenth century course settled at Nazareth"? I think scholarship has accepted this alleged marble inscription too uncritically. Given that it was excavated in 1962, I think its worth a second look after all, this is around the same time that SGM was allegedly discovered so its well within the 'era of forgery'.

Father Bagatti and company would definitely be on secure grounds with the archaeological 'discovery' of such a marble fragment. The subsequent archaological digs by Meyers and Strange, Franciscan fathers and even the works of Finegan and Reed (Excavating Jesus) have involved drawing the eye where the arrow has hit. They have shifted their 'reconsctructions' severally.

Ted Hoffman

Easton's Bible dictionary of 1897 says: "Nazareth...is still identified with the modern village en-Nazirah, of six or ten thousand inhabitants".

Ted Hoffman

The Greeks have mount Olympus but they dont claim its the home of their gods because they separate mount olympus the myth, from mount olympus the actual.

Archaeological digs indicate that the place called Nazareth currently was a basin inhabited by a few families. Or it was designated a burial place by inhabitants of Sepphoris (my readings of the Mishnah and the arrangement of tombs makes Zindler's necropolis theory unlikely).

Luke says it was a city and had a cliff. This is not consistent with the archaological findings. Plain and simple.

It is, in my view, apologetic of scholars to claim that the current Nazareth is the same one referenced in the NT. The only thing in common between them is the name. A name which, I am beginning to discover, may have been applied only later to refer to the place called Nazareth, as spin has alluded.

Vorkosigan

Where exactly would I find that citation?

Toto

Gospel of Marcion (reconstructed) from earlychristianwritings

MortalWombat

OK, I don't get it. In the online text of Marcion listed there, he writes about both Nazareth (in the section "The Synagogue in Nazareth") and Gennesaret (in the section "The Lake of Gennesaret"), or is this just Tertullian putting words in his mouth?

Toto

I don't get it either, but this is a reconstructed version from Marcion's critics. Marcion does not have Jesus come from Nazareth, and never refers to Jesus "of Nazareth". The reconstruction only refers to Nazareth in a passage that clearly does not match the current geography of Nazareth.

Tertullian writes: This strongly implies that Tertullian found the mention of Nazareth in Marcion's text.

However, from a note on that page:

This note continues with instances of Tertullian's confusion of sources: