maryhelena

I’ve not read either James Randi or Rene Salm’ ideas about Nazareth - hence am not familiar with their particular positions. However, here is another perspective on Nazareth that might be of interest.

The question of whether or not Nazareth functioned in a big way, or a small way, during the time the gospels placed Jesus there, seems to have become something of an issue for mythicists. If Nazareth was uninhabited, so the reasoning seems to go, therefore - one more feather in the cap for the mysticist position - or perhaps, hopefully, the final nail in coffin of the historical Jesus.

On the other side of the debate, the historical Jesus position, people seem to think that Nazareth, in itself, is reason to believe that a historical Jesus existed i.e. because Nazareth was a nowhere sort of place and would be a cause of embarrassment - so why mention the place at all if it was not really true that Jesus came from there! The gospels do reflect this assessment of Nazareth. ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth’, ‘Is the Christ to come from Galilee?’, ‘Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee’. Hence, for the HJ position, an inhabited Nazareth at the appropriate gospel time period would be a welcome confirmation of the trustworthiness of the gospel story.

Both camps have a stake in Nazareth - although both camps can retain their respective positions without confirmation, or lack of compelling evidence against, Nazareth’ actual situation at the relevant time. One position is based on faith and the other based on the premise that the gospel story is fiction anyway. Faith verse fiction? Easy win here for faith. However, I think the mythicist position can do better than this. Rather than a wholesale dismissal of the gospels as fiction - why not use the gospels mythological elements combined with their prophetic elements. Prophecy + mythology = gospel story. Here is one way that such an approach to the Nazareth ‘problem’ can be undertaken.

Nazareth was presented as a problem in the Jesus story line - as it continues to be a problem today.....From a mythological perspective, however, Nazareth, as a nowhere sort of place, with little or even no habitation at the relevant time period, does add something important to the Jesus story.

The Bethlehem story is plainly evidence of prophecy being applied.

But Nazareth? Here is an idea.

We do know, from the history of mythology, that the gospel story of Jesus of Nazareth does reflect many mythological elements. The mythology placed upon Jesus of Nazareth comes from a world far away from the confines of Judea and Bethlehem. His roots, his mythological roots, lie elsewhere. That elsewhere, to devote Jews, would be contrary to everything they found in their prophetic interpretations of the OT. Hence, on a mythological basis, connecting Jesus to Nazareth makes a lot of sense.....Nazareth, that obscure and objectionable little village with no connection whatsoever to OT prophecy, was as good a place as any to set down a mythological man whose real roots are entwined with a much bigger tree....

Its possible that, mythologically speaking, the ‘body’ of Jesus belonged to Bethlehem - i.e. from prophecy and Jewish history. His ‘spirit’, conceived by a virgin, had other origins. Conception and mythology in Nazareth. Birth and prophecy in Bethlehem. Two places of origin: Bethlehem and that obscure little village of Nazareth.

Interestingly, the gospel of Luke does provide two ‘birth’ dates for Jesus - the 6.a.d. census of Quirinius - and also 1.b.c. – 30 years back from the 29th year of Tiberius when Jesus is about 30 years old. Two birth dates - an earlier date for the mythological origins - and a later date for the prophetic birth in Bethlehem. Well, something like that......

The 7 years between these two birth dates indicate that Luke is using prophetic time frames. Luke’ use of prophetic time frames is clearly indicated when he links the 29th year of Tiberius with the 40 b.c. rule of Lysanias of Abilene. 70 years, that old standard of OT prophecy.

The question, from a mythological point of view, is not about whether Nazareth was a big village or was a small village during the gospel story time line, or that it did not exist as a functioning village at all during that time . The real question is what can be implied, for the mythicist position, from the gospel story and its emphasis upon Nazareth.

Toto

Actually, no. It's more of a footnote than an issue. Frank Zindler and Rene Salm are the only people who have made a point of the (non)-existence of Nazareth.

Nazareth could have existed, but Jesus could still have been a myth. Or Jesus could have existed, but legendary development could have assigned him to Nazareth, which might or might not have existed; and even if Nazareth existed, its exact location may be hard to pinpoint, so the question of whether it existed is, in practical terms, not subject to falsifiability.

I guess that when religious entrepreneurs seem to be setting up Jesusland in Palestine to provide entertainment for gullible tourists, there is a certain attraction to debunking their premises. But this is not a significant part of the case for mythicism.

maryhelena

Hi, Toto
Perhaps my point regarding Nazareth and the mythicist position stems more from seeing the debates on the issue on another forum i.e. Nazareth being used a bit like a football between the HJ camp and the MJ camp.....

I agree with your point re falsifiability for Nazareth. My interests don't actually lie with that particular debate. My position on Nazareth is simply one that takes Luke, for instance, at his word - and then tries to work out, from his story line, what he is using specific elements, in this case Nazareth, for.

spin

Yup. Anyone interested can check out the LXX of Jos 20:8. The Hebrew mentions R)MT, ie Ramoth, but the LXX has ARHMWQ. 1 Sam 1:19 talks of Ramah (=height, Ramoth is a plural of this), while the LXX ARMAQAIM. The genitive form found in the gospels, eg Mat 27:57, is ARIMAQAIAS.


spin

maryhelena

Joseph of Arimathea

Once one has decided for the mythicist position regarding Jesus of Nazareth, there is no need to confine one’s interpretation, understanding, of the gospel story to the very few years that the gospels give to the ministry of Jesus. Therefore, elements within the gospel story line can be viewed as either a backward dating, or a bringing forward dating, of historical events. Resulting in a prophetic interpretation of history.

From this perspective, the account of Joseph of Arimathea can be traced to a similar story in Josephus. (Yosef Ben Matityahu).
Josephus, interesting fellow........

Burial in the rich man’s tomb is an attempt to apply a prophecy. Resurrection the mythological element.

Joseph of Arimathea, the secret disciple, the mystery man involved in such a major episode in the Jesus story line - a story line that itself is reflected in the life of Josephus - well, at least it does present all sorts of questions.....:constern01:


Robert Carrier has an interesting article on Luke and Josephus:

Amaleq13

That would be Richard Carrier.


Luke and Josephus

maryhelena

Yes, of course..
Is there a way to to edit my post?

Toto

Neil Godfrey has a review of a review of Salm here, referencing this thread.