dog-on

Um, no. The question is irrelevant to whether or not the surviving evidence, that is the texts, can be shown to have derived from independent sources.

Edit:
And since I am feeling gracious. Exactly where does Mark say that Jesus was "born" in Nazareth? All Mark claims is that at some time, Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee. Which could easily mean that this was where he was prior to where he came to meet John...

Juststeve

Judge:

Yours is a question that has been discussed here a lot. The parsimonious answer is that Mark promoted a Jesus from Nazareth because that is really where he came from and lots of folks in Mark's day knew it. As much as he would have liked to be able to say Jesus of Bethlehem he was stuck with a bit of well known biography.

This is very clear when we look at the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Wanting badly to place Jesus in Bethlehem in spite of his association with Nazareth they concoct different and sometimes contradictory accounts for how Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem after all. This is what you would expect were they trying to polish up the resume of a real person from Nazareth, not what you would expect if they were free to place him wherever they wanted.

You question is well asked. The answers I have seen thus far would appeal only to those who came from an unshakable preconception that no Jesus ever existed.

Steve

Solo

Hi Jake,
we had a go at it here not too long ago.

Best,
Jiri

jakejonesiv

Why do we need a “mythicist” answer for Nazareth in GMark? I think we can examine the question in a way that is neutral with regards to the Christ myth.

This is the single mention of the town of Ναζαρὲτ in the gospel of Mark. {Some translations put "Nazareth" in Mark 1:24 and 10:7, but these should be "Nazarene" instead}

I don’t know of a significant textual variation for Mark 1:9 in the extant texts, but the extant texts are too late to help us here. Another way to look at it is, can we name a single citation of Mark 1:9 use of Nazareth in the patristic writings? Again, I don’t know of any.

But we do have witnesses to an earlier text of Mark, namely the gospels of Matthew and Luke. When these two both omit something in Mark’s gospel (as with the wild beasts of Mark 1:13 just a few verses later) we are justified in questioning whether the canonical text of mark has been redacted from the earlier versions(s) used by the other synoptic evangelists.

Allowing for Matthew's usual paraphrasing of Mark, Matt 3:13 is entirely equivalent to Mark 1:9, except that Matthew doesn't have "Nazareth;" Jesus merely comes from Galilee!  

Matthew either dropped "Nazareth" from GMark or it wasn't in his copy. But if Matthew's copy of GMark did mention Nazareth at 1:9, why would Matthew have removed it?

To the contrary, Nazareth was not the hometown of Jesus in GMark. Apparently Capernaum was the home of Jesus. "When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home." Mark 2:1.

The case for the omission in Luke is not quite so clear. Nazareth is missing from Luke’s baptism scene 3:21-22. But with Luke 4:14, “Jesus returned to Galilee” we find the bookend to Matthews 3:13 “Jesus came from Galilee" to the Jordan. In both Luke and Matthew, Jesus came to the Jordan from Galilee, but not specifically Nazareth.

Thus we are left with the likelihood that Matthew invented Jesus being from the town of "Nazareth" from his bewildering "prophecy" in Matthew 2:23. Whatever Matthew had in mind, it shows his lack of understanding concerning the Jewish scriptures.

The author of Mathew may have had in mind some such passage as the following:
Perhaps Matthew didn't know what Nazarene meant, confused it with Nazarite, and compounded the error by assigning Jesus to the town Nazareth (fictious or not) to explain the whole thing.


I wouldn't get too concerned about Matthew contradicting himself. He does precisely that when he says the name Jesus was prophesied, and then "proves" it by quoting something about Emmanuel. Matt. 1:21-23.


I would suggest that "Nazareth" was inserted into the text of Mark 1:9. It was perhaps a marginal gloss that was copied into the text by a careless scribe. And while this isn't in any way a "mythicist" answer, it is consistent with mythicism.

Jake

judge

This is what MCalavera said here.

But you still don't get it.

Why would Mark associate a messiah with Nazareth?

Mythicists have no answer, and your non-answer dodges the issue.

dog-on

Somethimes this stuff is just too amusing.

dog-on

This is just goofy...

MCalavera

Why Isaiah 11:1?

If Jesus was never from Nazareth, he could've easily ignored that very useless verse and just went to Micah 5:2 instead to make it sound like Jesus was from Bethlehem because Micah 5:2 would've supported him much better than Isaiah 11:1 ever could.

Bad wording from me. I should've said "It's more likely Jesus was just a myth".

The way I see it, Mark is independent of any other written source for Jesus. Is that what you're after? :huh:

MCalavera

Nothing but ad hoc speculating.

Your explanation needs to destroy the necessity for the question I'm asking not just give whatever answer you feel like.

MCalavera

It's very relevant. Let me repeat it one more time.

If Jesus is simply a made up Messiah, why associate Nazareth with the Messiah instead of Bethlehem itself? It would've served the theological purpose much much better than Nazareth ever could.