Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-30-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

In the scholarly literature discussing this (sorry, I don't have names and titles handy at the moment) it has been pointed out that we know of not a single sect name ever deriving from the place-name where its founder grew up. It is simply not a plausible explanation. Groups give themselves names after persons, after their beliefs or practices, but not after a small town where its leader grew up.

Add to this the apparent fact that the sectarian word for "Nazarene" does not naturally derive from "Nazareth", anyway (I am not an expert in the languages discussed but I have seen this explained in the literature often enough).

The most plausible explanation is that either Matthew attempted to contrive the name from "Nazarene", or that he attempted to force a fit between "Nazarene" and "Nazareth" since by the time he wrote (towards the end of the first century or second century) the town by then did exist, and it looked close enough to his "Nazarene" for him to at least attempt a case. The latter seems the more likely to me.

From the external literary and archaeological evidence, Nazareth appears to have been founded or settled by the Judean/Jerusalem refugees after 70 c.e. This coincides with the appearance of Pharisees and synagogues throughout Galilee. The external literary and archaeological evidence points to Nazareth being as much an anachronism as Pharisees and synagogues in Galilee prior to 70 c.e.

Many things can seem seemingly straightforward if we take a single text narrative at face value. But historians need to evaluate the nature of that evidence and seek external corroboration. In the case of Nazareth there is no external corroboration -- what exists as external support for Bethlehem does not exist for Nazareth -- and we have only an ideological explanation for its appearance in the gospel narrative. This is not loony reasoning. It is normal methodology -- drawing conclusions from evidence that the evidence can logically support -- for any real (generally nonbiblical) history.

It has been opined (not often enough) that "biblical history" should be taken out of the departments and faculties of religion, theology and biblical studies, and placed fair and square in the regular history departments. Not hard to see why.

I learned from talking to spin that there are five different spellings of what should have been the same name: Nazareth. spin, of course, has a very complex explanation for these variations, claiming that "Nazara" did not at first refer to the town, but instead to something else (Nazirites? The Nazarene sect?). But I go with the simpler explanation. The Greek authors did not have a translation for the Aramaic name, they had only the mythical Aramaic pronunciations, and Aramaic pronunciations do not correspond easily with Greek, so they had many ways to transliterate the same name. spin believes that this argument ignores the principle of lectio difficilior. And I think he is misapplying the principle, because lectio difficilior is used when there are two manuscripts that should contain the same text but with a difference, and one variation is a more difficult reading than the other. It is not properly applied when there are many variant spellings of a word contained in one set of manuscripts in agreement. A universal rule in exegesis is that the simplest explanation should prevail, and my explanation is by far the simplest.

Why do you think that your explanation is the simplest when it could be that you are simply wrong.

No city called Nazareth has been found up to now, and there is no mention of any Ruler coming from Nazareth in the OT or the books of the prophet.

But, it should be noted that the word "Nazarite" is found in the OT in Numbers 6 and Judges 13 and a "Nazarite" has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone living in a city called Nazareth.

A "Nazarite" did not shave his head or drink wine, there is no requirement to live in a city called Nazareth. See Numbers 6 and Judges 13.

For example, the infamous legendary character called Samson may have been characterised as a "Nazarite" and there is no record that the legend lived in a city called Nazareth.

avi · 12-30-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Mark never refers to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth". That is the interpretation of English Bible translators. Mark consistently refers to Jesus as "Jesus the Nazarene" in Greek, not "of Nazareth". The only time that Mark even writes the word "Nazareth" is at 1:9 which I suspect is an interpolation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by codex sinaiticus, Mark 1:9

και εγενετο εν εκει ναιϲ ταιϲ ημεραιϲ
ηλθεν ιϲ απο ναζα ρετʼ τηϲ γαλιλαιαϲ και εβαπτιϲθη ειϲ τον ϊορδανην ϋπο

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hort and Westcott, = Codex Vaticanus

kai egeneto en ekeinaiV taiV hmeraiV hlqen ihsouV apo nazaret thV galilaiaV kai ebaptisqh eiV ton iordanhn upo iwannou

The "interpolation" would have to have occurred before the fourth century....Is there a papyrus from C2 or C3, that may shed light on this question of interpolation?

avi

show_no_mercy · 12-30-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Mark never refers to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth". That is the interpretation of English Bible translators. Mark consistently refers to Jesus as "Jesus the Nazarene" in Greek, not "of Nazareth". The only time that Mark even writes the word "Nazareth" is at 1:9 which I suspect is an interpolation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hort and Westcott, = Codex Vaticanus

kai egeneto en ekeinaiV taiV hmeraiV hlqen ihsouV apo nazaret thV galilaiaV kai ebaptisqh eiV ton iordanhn upo iwannou

The "interpolation" would have to have occurred before the fourth century....Is there a papyrus from C2 or C3, that may shed light on this question of interpolation?

avi

There's no physical evidence of interpolation, but textual; whatever version of Mark that Matthew was copying from at Matt 3:13, since they use almost the same wording (minus "Nazareth") to describe the same action in the same pericope (Jesus coming to be baptized by John).

Quote:

Mark 1:9 At that time Jesus came from [Nazareth in] Galilee (ιησους απο [ναζαρετ] της γαλιλαιας) and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Matt 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee (ιησους απο της γαλιλαιας) to the Jordan to be baptized by John.

Then here's another place with similar wording to Mark 1:9 in a different pericope, an original expanding of the version of Mark's triumphal entry by Matt that uses "Nazareth" in Matt at 21:10-11.

Quote:

10When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?"

11The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee." (ιησους ο απο ναζαρεθ της γαλιλαιας)

Matt was obsessed with throwing "Nazareth" everywhere in as many different spellings as possible. Why would he leave it out in the one place that Mark has "Nazareth"? Maybe because Matt's version of Mark didn't have "Nazareth" there.

neilgodfrey · 12-30-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Nothing went wrong. No interpolation here. Matthew wanted to explain (away) the uncomfortable Nazarene epithet and was lucky enough to find a small village that sounded sort of like Nazarene -- he was writing late first century or early second century by which time Nazareth had appeared in the wake of the population dislocations after 70 c.e.

Why is "Nazarene" an epithet? If you are referring to a sect by this name, although I may be wrong, I think the only evidence we have that such a sect existed prior to the gospels comes from Acts.

If we accept that Mark is the earliest of known gospels (canonical or not), Mark refers to him as "Jesus of Nazareth". It seems like Matthew would have to be primary to make this make sense, or a 3rd source (Q, gospel of the Hewbrews, etc)

There is much more evidence in other church writings in addition to what we have in Acts. I would like to summarize the evidence some time.

Matthew is primary with respect to the Nazareth reference. That Nazareth reference in Mark is in a chunk of text that Matthew copies word for word -- but happens to omit the "of Nazareth" bit, indicating it was not in the text of Mark that Matthew knew.

N

neilgodfrey · 12-30-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There must have some been problem why the author switched from Bethlehem to Nazareth.

I hear you. You have made this point several times. I have explained my reasons for preferring another explanation.

Loomis · 12-30-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Matthew 2. 5-6, the author claimed it was fulfilled prophecy that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and quoted a passage found in Micah 5.2.

Matthew 2.4-6

And this is Micah 5.2

The author is actually quoting from Micah 5.2 for the prophecy on Bethlehem, but when he mentioned that Jesus was to dwell in Nazareth, no such prophecy can be found anywhere in the OT by any prophet.

Matthew 2.23.

Not one single prophet in the Bible claimed Jesus was to dwell in Nazareth or was to be called a Nazarene but the author of Micah did claim that a ruler was to come out of Bethlehem.

Why did not Jesus dwell in Bethlehem a well-known place and seemed to be based on prophecy but went instead to a place where no prophecy can be found and was still called Jesus of Nazareth?

No ruler should come out of Nazareth, there is no prophecy anywhere in the Bible by any prophet. The words Nazareth or Nazarene are not even in the OT.

It should have been Jesus of Bethlehem. The prophecy was fulfilled. Based on the very author of gMatthew Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Micah 5.2

Quote:

But thou, Bethlehem Eph'ratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me
that is to be ruler in Israel...

Something went wrong? Another author? What happened? An interpolation?

Josephus mentioned villages and cities surrounding where the city of Nazareth should have been but never mentioned the city.

Josephus was in Besara, Simonias and Japha, all a few miles from the supposed city of Nazareth.

And there is another interesting point Jesus, born in Bethlehem, did nothing in Nazareth, he started his ministry in Capernaum.

Are you familiar with John 7:40-43?

Quote:

On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet." (an allusion to Joshua/Jesus in Deuteronomy 18:15)

Others said, "He is the Christ."

Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's seed and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.

In this episode ‘some of the people of Jerusalem’ began to ask ‘Is Jesus the Christ?’

The blue people said he is “the prophet like Moses.”

The green people said he is the Christ.

But the red people argued that Jesus could not be the Christ because he wasn’t born in Bethlehem.

Why did the red people think Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem?

How come ‘John’ doesn’t do anything to correct this confusion?

How come ‘John’ doesn’t create any positive association between Jesus and Bethlehem?

It seems like John was aware of a controversy surrounding where Jesus was born, but instead of taking a stand on it one way or another he just passed the buck and wrote the controversy into his gospel.

neilgodfrey · 12-30-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I learned from talking to spin that there are five different spellings of what should have been the same name: Nazareth. spin, of course, has a very complex explanation for these variations, claiming that "Nazara" did not at first refer to the town, but instead to something else (Nazirites? The Nazarene sect?). But I go with the simpler explanation. The Greek authors did not have a translation for the Aramaic name, they had only the mythical Aramaic pronunciations, and Aramaic pronunciations do not correspond easily with Greek, so they had many ways to transliterate the same name. spin believes that this argument ignores the principle of lectio difficilior. And I think he is misapplying the principle, because lectio difficilior is used when there are two manuscripts that should contain the same text but with a difference, and one variation is a more difficult reading than the other. It is not properly applied when there are many variant spellings of a word contained in one set of manuscripts in agreement. A universal rule in exegesis is that the simplest explanation should prevail, and my explanation is by far the simplest.

And I think the rule applies in this case, too. Maybe "Nazarene" is not the proper gentilic form of "Nazareth," but the gospel authors have shown that they had no agreement over how to spell "Nazareth," so the seeming mismatch should be expected as a continuation of their fumbling with transliterations. That is the simplest explanation that lines up best with the evidence.

I don't know the languages well enough to comment on your reasoning, so I have to defer to the one with the more qualified opinion. But if you raise your reasoning with spin or another qualified I might be in a position to reconsider.

After all, you wouldn't want me taking the arguments of a piano teacher over those of a professional archaeologist on some point about Nazareth, would you? ;-)

Quote:

The point you made, "...it has been pointed out that we know of not a single sect name ever deriving from the place-name where its founder grew up. It is simply not a plausible explanation."

That sounds like a good point, because I hate to require my model to break normal patterns. Sure, maybe the sect of "Nazarenes" would be breaking the pattern if my model holds true, for a sect to name themselves after the town of their leader. But that doesn't mean it isn't a plausible explanation. After all, why not? I imagine that such a thing hasn't happened merely because the religious sect would be confused with the people who are actually from the town. Such a confusion would not really exist in this case, because Nazareth was so small, just a hamlet known only for the place of Jesus.

I think you mean "possible" rather than "plausible"? Why on earth would a sect be named after a nobody town that just happened to be a place where its founder spent his boyhood? Sect names are chosen or given according to some point of belief or practice or founding person. I don't see the plausibility at all.

spamandham · 12-30-2009, 10:30 PM

..in regard to the sect of Nazarenes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

There is much more evidence in other church writings in addition to what we have in Acts. I would like to summarize the evidence some time.

That would probably be very interesting. If you remember, would you mind PMing when you get around to it?

aa5874 · 12-30-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

... Something went wrong? Another author? What happened? An interpolation?......

......It seems like John was aware of a controversy surrounding where Jesus was born, but instead of taking a stand on it one way or another he just passed the buck and wrote the controversy into his gospel.

I was not aware of John 7.40-43 but the passage clearly shows that the author of gJohn could not even resolve the problem. He left it unanswered.

Something went inexplicable wrong.

The author of gJohn knew of the supposed prediction in Micah 5.2 and yet the author of Matthew, although admitting that Jesus was born in Behlehem as predicted in Micah 5.2, still wrote that Jesus was to be a Nazarene from Nazareth.

The author of gJohn knew nothing of this Nazarene/Nazareth prediction.

John 7.40-43

Quote:

40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.

41 Others said, This is the Christ.

But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

43 So there was a division among the people because of him.

OH MY GOD! LOOMIS!

Jesus of Nazareth was a fake !

Mr 13:6 -

Quote:

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

What a joke! The true Jesus would have answered to the name or be called Jesus of Bethlehem not Jesus of Nazareth.

mountainman · 12-31-2009, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There must have some been problem why the author switched from Bethlehem to Nazareth.

Bethlehem airport was down because of a bright star - Bethlehem air traffic control diverted everything to Nazareth.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.